Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Acute Admissions, Leicestershire

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps her Department is taking to ensure that there are sufficient hospital beds for acute admissions in Leicestershire. [27711]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): It is for the local health authorities, working with local trusts and other providers, to plan for the right number of beds and other services to meet the identified needs of the local population.

Mr. Robathan: Although I appreciate that it is not the direct responsibility of his Department, my hon. Friend will know that there has been grave concern in Leicestershire about the number of acute and emergency beds available. There have been some publicised incidents in which people have been kept waiting for some time on trolleys in Leicestershire hospitals. I am aware of the good work of the bed bureau in Leicestershire, but will he assure me and the people of Leicestershire that sufficient beds will be made available for their needs in the near future?

Mr. Bowis: The specific question is rightly directed to Leicestershire. My hon. Friend rightly praised the bed bureau for its work; it had a remarkably good success rate right the way through 1994, including the winter months, but, during a couple of months this spring, a problem was caused by extra demand and staff sickness. That has been tackled, and the good news for Leicestershire is that, for 1995–96, the cash allocation goes up by 5.4 per cent. We can therefore look forward to ever-improving services for the people of that county.

Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister not recognise that, despite the Department's recent conversion to evidence-based policy making, in all too many parts of the country, as in Leicestershire, beds are being closed at a rate that seems to anticipate changes in the delivery of health care rather than to follow in their footsteps, despite lack of evidence, and without evaluation of effects and monitoring of what is happening? As a result, in many parts of the country, including Leicestershire, too many patients are chasing too few beds, and it is his Department's responsibility.

Mr. Bowis: The right hon. Lady has widened this somewhat from Leicestershire. If one widened it still further and considered comparisons round the world, one

would find that the trend here in in-patient beds per thousand is on the same graph as it is in the United States of America, Italy and many other countries of Europe, including Ireland.
The important thing is that, in 1993–94, 8.2 million episodes were carried out. The average wait, which in 1988 was more than nine months, has gone down to under five months. The number of day cases has gone up by 66 per cent. In counties such as Leicestershire, there are improvements day by day, to which the right hon. Lady failed to give a moment's regard, much less a moment's praise.
Let me refer the right hon. Lady to the rapid access chest pain assessment service at Glenfield general hospital, enabling general practitioner referrals on the same day for many people. She should pay tribute to progress, and not find nit-picking criticisms based on somewhere that has nothing to do with Leicestershire.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend will know from his days as a Conservative party agent in Leicestershire of the good work of the national health service in that county. Will he take the opportunity in the near future to return to Leicestershire to consider the work of LOROS—the Leicestershire Organisation for the Relief of Suffering—which has an excellent hospice in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), which is doing sterling work but which is 50 per cent. funded by the NHS and 50 per cent. funded by voluntary subscription? Will my hon. Friend ensure that the health service continues to donate 50 per cent. of funding to that most wonderful hospice?

Mr. Bowis: I am always pleased to be invited to return to my former county of Leicestershire. When I am next there, I shall try to make time to visit the hospice to which my hon. and learned Friend rightly pays tribute. He also pays tribute to the fact that, under this Government, the hospice movement has really taken off. The funding for hospices, the work in palliative care and our recent guidance on continuing care where palliative care is concerned show that that sector has an excellent future while the Government are in power.

Regional Variations

Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action her Department is taking to reduce cross-regional variations in health. [27712]

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new initiatives she intends to take to reduce regional and social class variations in the health of the population. [27716]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): We are tackling variations in health by working to improve health across the whole population, by allocating funding according to need, and by ensuring that health authorities are able to assess the needs of their local population and target spending accordingly.

Ms Anderson: Can the Secretary of State explain why the death rate from cervical cancer in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale area is 60 per cent. higher than the national average, and more than twice the rate in her constituency of Surrey, South-West?

Mrs. Bottomley: Before giving a substantive reply to the hon. Lady, I should like briefly to pay tribute to the


late Lord Ennals, who held my present office for several years. I knew him personally since my childhood, and he was a great campaigner and a great enthusiast, especially on mental health issues, so it seems appropriate to mention his contribution to the House today, when we are to discuss the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill.
In answer to the hon. Lady, the key question is why her party resisted the GP contract that introduced additional encouragement for screening for cervical cancer. Our strategies have directed help to where it is most needed, and developed practical policies that have achieved change, so that the hon. Lady now has in her constituency not only a cervical screening programme but an effective breast screening programme. Difficulties involving variations in health outcome exist in this country, as in every country. The difference between the Labour party and ourselves is that we have practical policies for addressing and reducing those inequalities.

Mr. Bayley: Does the Secretary of State agree with the British Medical Association that the wealth gap and the health gap are both widening—in its words, as
the direct, if unintentional, result of policy choices
by the Government? When will the Government change those policies, which have led, for instance, to the scandal that, in Gateshead, infants are 12 times more likely to die in their first year of life than are infants in the Prime Minister's constituency of Huntingdon?

Mrs. Bottomley: I agree with the BMA that our "The Health of the Nation" strategy is one of the most important initiatives that we have developed in recent years. It has been commended by the World Health Organisation and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and as a result of it we can now bring the different Departments together to tackle the task of improving health.
In the same way, we expect local health alliances to form, so that the health authorities and the local authorities can develop practical policies to deliver change. Over the past 10 years, infant mortality rates have fallen from 11 to 6.5 per thousand, and life expectancy at birth has increased from 71.8 to 73.8 years. Those figures have improved, and infant mortality has fallen, for all social groups and in all regions.

Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest and most important link between poverty and ill health is poor housing, and that much—indeed, the overwhelming bulk—of poor housing is administered by local government? If so, how often do she and her colleagues discuss health and housing matters with the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration?

Mrs. Bottomley: As ever, my hon. Friend has hit the issue precisely. The Labour party talks about equality, but delivers a shambles. It has no practical policies for delivering any of its objectives. We have recently been subjected to the news that it plans a great act of vandalism against precisely the strategic changes in the health service that have enabled us to identify areas of difficulty and to take forward practical policies.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the link between housing and health, as she is about many other factors. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and

I frequently meet Housing Ministers to discuss practical ways in which to take policies forward. People would be better served by Labour local authorities who took their stewardship more seriously, and, instead of talking the rhetoric of improving quality, took practical action, as the Conservative party has.

Sir Anthony Grant: When considering cross-regional variations, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that hospitals such as Addenbrooke's and Papworth are centres of excellence equal to any London hospital, and that they happen to be in one of the fastest growing areas of the country, whereas London is the slowest growing area? On that basis, is she aware that her policy on hospitals is absolutely bang right?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend. He is one of a number of extremely distinguished and eminent opinion formers who take the view that the change in London was long overdue, and that, if there has been a problem in London, it has been the inadequate primary care services. That is why our decision, for example, to introduce deprivation payments for GPs in poorer areas, which means that they can get up to £30,000 more, is the right way forward—the practical action to deliver the necessary change.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank the Secretary of State for her tribute to Lord Ennals, which is, of course, both appreciated and echoed by the Opposition.
On the substance of the question, can I ask the Secretary of State whether, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, it is still her view that the Government should continue to deny the link between poverty and health inequalities?

Mrs. Bottomley: As ever, the Labour party is simplistic in its analysis. Of course income is a factor, and so are heredity, education, housing and unemployment; but our party supports a wealth-creating, job-creating economy, which means that we have below-average, falling unemployment—1,000 fewer on the unemployment registers every day. I suggest that those in the Labour party who are genuinely concerned about the wealth and well-being of the people of this country should applaud a Government who have so singularly successfully improved the standing of our nation and the employment prospects of our people and, in practical terms, substantially improved the health service.

Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the health needs of deprived populations are best met by developing the community health services provided by GPs and their teams? Will she confirm that that will remain at the heart of the new NHS?

Mrs. Bottomley: Undoubtedly, the development of and improvements in primary care have been among the most important changes in recent years. That is the first priority in the guidance that we have issued to the service this year.
I think that those who believe in primary care 'are perplexed that among the many acts of vandalism being prepared by the Labour party is the undermining or destruction of GP fundholding, which has so singularly led to successes and changes in primary care. It should pay more attention to how it can build on the successes, and, above all, make sure that the substantial extra


resources going to local authorities for community care are properly spent and wisely used in the interests of the most vulnerable in the community.

Hospital Trusts

Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital trusts have entered into contractual agreements with health purchasers which set different maximum waiting times for the same clinical procedures. [27713]

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): Under the new patients charter, we have recently introduced a new, 18-month guaranteed maximum wait for in-patient and day case treatment and a first ever standard for wait to first out-patient consultation; all patients should be seen within 26 weeks of being referred by their general practitioner with nine out of 10 being seen within 13 weeks. These are, of course, maximum waiting times and we encourage purchasers to agree contracts which improve on these times for their patients when possible.

Mr. Denham: What does the Minister have to say to my constituents in Southampton who in the past year have had to wait twice as long for cardiac operations at Southampton general hospital as patients from Bournemouth who use the same hospital for the same treatment with the same surgeon? Indeed, what does the Minister have to say to his own constituents who had to wait three times as long as patients from Bournemouth for treatment in Southampton general hospital? Is it not the case that the internal market is forcing hospitals to enter into contracts in which where people live is more important than how ill they are in respect of how fast they are treated?

Mr. Malone: I remind the hon. Gentleman that tougher targets of that sort apply only to non-urgent cases. All treatment is provided within the terms of the 1991 agreement between the Government and clinicians, which clearly indicates that no trust should offer a contract to one purchaser that would disadvantage another. Emergencies should be seen at once and there should be common waiting lists for cases that cannot be seen immediately.
The hon. Gentleman wants to deny better treatment when it is possible under the new system. He could always ask those in his constituency who have waited for more than a year for treatment at Southampton hospital whether they think bringing waiting times down is an improvement for them. He will find it hard to do so, because, under the present system, nobody has been waiting for more than a year at the hospital in his constituency.

Mr. Barry Field: Why did my hon. Friend not tell the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) about the Isle of Wight hospital trust, which moved its cardiac contract from Southampton, because the service was so awful, to King Edward VII hospital at Midhurst, where we now get a fantastic service? The surgeon concerned made a hell of a row publicly, because he preferred playing golf to getting on and doing the operations.

Mr. Malone: I am sure that my hon. Friend, who always speaks vigorously on behalf of his constituents, will lose no time in reminding them that, under the policies that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is preparing, which have been leaked, taking such action would not be possible. The reforms that we have put in place for the new NHS bring better

treatment for more people, more flexibility and decisions closer to the patient. Those are precisely the things that the Labour party is trying to destroy.

Ms Jowell: Does the Minister accept that variations in consultant practice may be another reason for different waiting times? Does he consider it acceptable that some consultant surgeons on maximum part-time contracts with the national health service should work three or four half-days a week in the private sector? Has he examined the evidence prepared by his own adviser, John Yates, on this? What action does he propose to take to ensure that consultant surgeon time, paid for by the national health service, is spent treating national health service patients?

Mr. Malone: It is, of course, the Government's policy to pursue over the long term local pay and contracts for the medical profession, which, if I have understood correctly, the Labour party is dead against. I remind the hon. Lady that there are already job plans which have to be agreed between trusts and consultants. A consultant's primary duty is, of course, to his or her NHS contract; that is clearly recognised and understood. The Government, however, very much welcome the fact that any additional work that a consultant may wish to do in the private sector can be done, as long as the balance is right. The Labour party, which continues to carp on about the issue, has brought forward no evidence that the balance is not right in any particular case.

Funding

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure equality of funding between district health authorities. [27714]

Mr. Malone: We remain committed to the principle of weighted capitation as being the fairest way in which to achieve equality of funding for health authorities.

Mr. Ainsworth: Despite covering the area with the second highest level of deprivation in the region, Coventry Health receives the lowest level of funding. Why is there not yet a time scale for addressing that issue? How on earth do those facts stack with what Ministers continually say about applying money where it is needed? Is it not the case that the Conservatives are loth to remove money from more affluent areas where the needs are not as great? That is the real issue.

Mr. Malone: Certainly not. If the hon. Gentleman looked at his own figures, he would see that, during the past year, Coventry Health moved from minus 3.5 per cent. below target to minus 2.2 per cent. That involved a cash increase of £7 million being spent within the hon. Gentleman's health authority.
A number of points have to be borne in mind. As one moves towards targets, it is extremely important not to destabilise arrangements that are already in place. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the health service across the country should be destabilised in terms of funding—his right hon. and hon. Friends intend to destabilise it' by ripping up the structure that has been put in place—he will find that that opinion is not very popular.

Mr. Wilshire: Does my hon. Friend accept that the over-provision of service in central London results in underfunding in places such as my constituency? Will he


accept the advice of my NHS managers, my consultants, and my GPs, and stand firm on the Department's proposal to rationalise services in central London?

Mr. Malone: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend of that point. I reiterate that the whole purpose of weighted capitation payments is to ensure that there is fairness not just between London and the rest of the country, but across the rest of the country as a whole.

Mr. Janner: When looking at funding, will the Minister be kind enough to remember the representations made to him just now by his hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who pointed out the grave concern of people in the Trent area in general, and in Leicestershire in particular, about the difficulty of getting hospital beds at all? A number of people have been dying before they manage to get into hospital or because of delays, an example being my constituent, Mrs. Lillian Wilkinson.
As yesterday marked 25 years of my service to my constituency, will the Minister be good enough to have a special look at the problems of the city of Leicester and its hospitals? Will he try to do what his hon. Friend the Member for Blaby asked him to do, and what Leicestershire Members of all parties wish him to do, which is to bring some hope and help to people in the area?

Mr. Malone: I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on 25 years of representing his constituents, of which I was unaware. The sounds of rejoicing had not quite reached my ears at Westminster, but I am sure that, locally, they are loud indeed.
Allocating resources fairly across the country is the principal objective of policy, but we also have mechanisms whereby local purchasers, be they health authorities or GP fundholders, can ensure that there is proper provision by directing funds at a local level and causing investment to take place. That is exactly what is happening across the health service, and it would be destroyed by the policies of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party.

Regional Health Authorities

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money she estimates will be saved from the abolition of regional health authorities. [27715]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: By 1997–98, total annual savings from the abolition of regional health authorities are expected to be around £100 million. Those substantial savings will be retained by the national health service and reinvested in patient care.

Mr. Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that £100 million would be lost if Labour were ever to implement its policies on the reforms of the national health service? Is it not true that the reforms in the NHS to date have helped my constituents immensely? Are not more in-patient and out-patient cases being treated, and are there not seven new consultants in the South-East Kent health trust?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the Labour party proposals would simply increase levels of bureaucracy, with no possible benefit to patients. My hon. Friend has seen the way in which improvements

have taken place in his constituency, as they have throughout the country, with extra consultants, falling waiting times and improved services. The Labour party simply offers promises to its trade unions, and nothing for patients.

Mrs. Mahon: Will the Secretary of State ensure that some of that money is earmarked for the Halifax district hospital? We have been waiting for it to be built for 20 years. Will she also stop the Calderdale trust from closing down the purpose-built Northowram hospital until the new hospital is built? Can she give a date on which construction will start?

Mrs. Bottomley: I know that the hon. Lady will greatly appreciate the fact that, on average, the Government have been able to open one £1 million capital project every week that we have been in office. There has been an unprecedented sustained programme of investment in the national health service. She will understand that changing medicine and changing therapeutic styles inevitably mean a changing structure in the health service in this country, as it is changing in every country in the world. Only the Labour party, with its luddite habits and its resistance to change, would pay the price of failing to give patients the best possible health care. We will continue to make progress as soon as we can.

Mr. Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend take courage from the success of this first assault on the multi-level bureaucracy of the national health service? As the NHS trusts grow in confidence and competence, will she assure the House that she will give them more freedom and less overweening bureaucracy from the top?

Mrs. Bottomley: I can indeed give that assurance. The freedoms of NHS trusts are part of the reason why they have been able to develop more responsive and better quality care for their patients, and not least why they have been able to design the pay structures of staff who work within them. The Labour party's research expenses are funded by Unison, yet Unison is demanding a payback on those research costs by requiring the Labour party only ever to take forward policies that would increase bureaucracy and undermine benefits for patients. We are keeping a book. Every commitment made by the Labour party reduces service and increases costs. Only the union paymasters benefit.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Bearing in mind the fact that GPs are now working an average of 62 hours a week, will the Minister consider committing some of the savings of which she has spoken to the six essential points which need to be met to solve the GPs' out-of-hours problem? In particular, and before the GPs meet tomorrow, will she consider telling them that she is prepared to use some of those savings to deal with the issues of valuing work load, valuing the work done by GPs, and the patient education needed to reduce out-of-hours calls?

Mrs. Bottomley: In my view, there are many areas for discussion with GPs. A work programme which looked at the work load of GPs was submitted to the review body, and it revealed that, although their work had increased by about 2 per cent., pay had increased by about 8 per cent. in the years considered. We have not only met the review body recommendations in full, but have agreed to a number of mechanisms to help GPs share the load of out-of-hours cover.
In addition, we have put on the table £45 million to help with the development of co-operatives. We want a constructive outcome, and we believe that there are many areas for discussion with GPs, which I hope will continue—not least their fair comments about encouraging the public to use their services responsibly and not to call them out inappropriately.

Capital Project Schemes

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many capital project schemes costing over £1 million are currently under construction; and how many are in the pipeline. [27717]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): There are a 112 building schemes in progress with a construction cost of over £1 million, with a further 75 in the pipeline.

Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend recall the media criticism of the decision to close the 400-bed unit at Rochford, even though it was based in an old workhouse and could not serve patients' needs effectively? Will he join me in welcoming the new 400-bed unit at Southend trust hospital? It has replaced that old workhouse unit and will serve many more patients, and serve them much better than the old unit. Will he fight the perverse antediluvian tendencies of the Opposition, who seek to resist all sound change we want to make in order to invest in the future of our national health service?

Mr. Sackville: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that his constituents will receive better health services in modern surroundings at the Southend hospital. The Opposition's constant carping and criticism of any closure is always accompanied by the construction of excellent new facilities elsewhere.

Mr. Betts: How many of the projects are now stuck in the private finance initiative assessment process? What is the average delay while projects are subject to that assessment? Is it true that those delays were responsible for a £200 million underspend in the national health service capital budget in the previous financial year?

Mr. Sackville: The PH will be a better way of procuring hospitals quicker and more cheaply by using all the skills of the private sector in tandem with those of the NHS.

Hospital Projects

Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about capital expenditure on hospital projects in Medway and Swale. [27718]

Mr. Sackville: Some £70 million is being invested in hospital projects in Medway and Swale. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that this represents a substantial investment in the health care of his constituents.

Sir Roger Moate: Is my hon. Friend aware that people in north Kent and north Kent Members of Parliament have been battling for years to get that type of investment in our local health service? It is marvellous news that the Government are delivering the next phase of the Medway hospital; that the Sittingbourne hospital is under construction; and that the construction of Sheppey hospital is due to start this year.
Is that not further evidence that the health service under the Government is being sustained and improved as one of the best health services in the world? Would it not make a change for those on the Opposition Benches to welcome such good news instead of adopting a constant carping, critical and negative approach, which undermines confidence in our health service?

Mr. Sackville: Those developments at Medway, Sittingbourne and Sheppey represent a huge number of projects—600 in the past 15 years—and they represent a constant upward trend in the hospital capital programme over that time. In fact, last year, that programme reached a record of £1.8 billion. Although I would be the last person to try to make political capital out of that, I must point out to the House that the late 70s was the only time when that trend was reversed, when the so-called Treasury team of the Labour Government drove this country to the moneylenders, and their first instinct was to slash the hospital capital programme. That is some commitment to health from a Government of which the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was a member.

St. Bartholomew's Hospital

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to allow St. Bartholomew's to continue as a private hospital. [27719]

Mr. Malone: Local health authorities and trusts are discussing the possibility of continuing health care at the St. Bartholomew's site with the Corporation of London. In addition, my right hon. Friend has asked Sir Ronald Grierson to chair a task force to look at practical options for the future use of the Smithfield site. The outcome of that work is awaited.

Mrs. Gorman: Does my hon. Friend agree that Bart's is to the medical world what Harrods is to retailing in the private sector—that is to say, it is a famous institution which can attract masses of spending to London from abroad? The tens of thousands of alumni of that hospital who are practising abroad would send their clients to a well-known public service hospital if it were not for the prejudice which the Opposition have about pay beds, which has prevented many hospitals from developing what could be a lucrative income to supplement their national health service work. Is it not a great shame that we are not doing more to encourage money that is spent in private hospitals to be spent in that area of the public sector?

Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear me confirm that it is the Government's intention to promote and to try to ensure a mixed economy for health, as that is important. My hon. Friend makes her point forcibly, but the reputation of any trust depends on its clinical excellence. The purpose of the change and consolidation at the trust to which we are referring is to promote clinical excellence. I am sure that Bart's reputation will be maintained and that the alumni will take good note of that.

Mrs. Beckett: Is the Minister aware that Bart's received more nominations from the public for a charter mark award than any other institution? Does he think that that might be due to the fact that, in all its history, Bart's has never had private beds and has never treated private patients? Is it not typical of the direction of health care under this Government, and the ultimate comment and


obscenity of their policy, that Conservative Members should be advocating the closure of Bart's as an NHS hospital and its opening—after 900 years—as a private institution to treat just a few people?

Mr. Malone: I am glad to see that— probably uniquely among Labour's Front-Bench team— the right hon. Lady's 1970s prejudices are entirely undiminished. Bart's received no nomination from the right hon. Lady when she was asked in a recent interview whether her party's policy would be to save Bart's. All we got was equivocation, and no firm answer. She is in no position to make any suggestion about the future of Bart's.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Reverting to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), if the Al Fayeds buy Bart's, can they have British citizenship?

Mr. Malone: I am sure that they would seek my hon. Friend's advice.

Brinnington Health Centre

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in funding an extension to the Brinnington health centre. [27720]

Mr. Sackville: The proposal to develop Brinnington health centre as a primary care resource centre is due for discussion at the North West regional health authority's July meeting. If approved, it will receive the go-ahead at that time.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister urge North West region to give sympathetic consideration to the proposals since there have been repeated reports during the past six or seven years about the ill health suffered by many people in Brinnington? The most useful thing that could be done is to make sure that those people have a health centre large enough to enable them to have such facilities as a pain clinic to improve the treatment that they are now receiving.

Mr. Sackville: Yes. This appears to be a worthwhile scheme which offers a great variety of services. Since the hon. Gentleman tabled his question he will have received a letter from the Stockport health commission, in which it mentions that the response to date to the information given to the region has been favourable. I hope very much that the scheme will go ahead, and that it will join another nine modern health centres in the north west, including four at a cost of £6.5 million in various deprived areas around Manchester.

Residential Accommodation

Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the implications of removing from local authorities the duty to provide residential accommodation for the elderly; and if she will make a statement. [27721]

Mr. Bowls: There is no such duty. Under the National Assistance Act 1948 the duty is to arrange to provide. Our purpose is to clarify that local authorities may arrange to provide residential care either directly or through contracts with other providers. This matches current practice.

Mr. Clapham: I hear what the Minister says, but is that not contrary to the policy that has been set down in previous White Papers, which suggested that care for the elderly should be based on a mixed economy? Is he aware that in Barnsley, one third of all households contain at least one person who is either elderly or disabled and who requires care? Some 12 per cent. of the adult population of Barnsley are informal carers. If the changes are implemented, will the Minister ensure that resources are made available to deprived areas like Barnsley so that adequate care in the community can be provided?

Mr. Bowis: It is a matter for Barnsley to organise the very real resources that it has obtained from the taxpayer to meet those needs. If our proposals are accepted, no one will compel anyone to do anything; we will just make things possible.
I think that perhaps Barnsley needs some guidance in view of what the Act requires and what a recent judgment suggested might be required. Barnsley provides no residential care for expectant and nursing mothers, for the physically disabled or for the mentally ill. I do not question that, but I think that it might help Barnsley to have the system clarified.

Mr. Sims: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, when an elderly person is assessed as being best cared for in a residential home, it remains the responsibility of the local authority to ensure that that person is suitably placed? Does he agree that elderly people's needs vary greatly and that the private voluntary sector is able to offer a far wider range of accommodation at a more reasonable cost than local authorities have ever been able to provide?

Mr. Bowis: Yes. My hon. Friend is quite right: as local authorities have looked for better quality at a better cost when placing people in residential care, increasingly they have looked to the independent sector. It is also true that individuals who are placed in residential care are choosing that sector as they begin to realise their rights under the statutory direction on choice. The only organisation that stands in the way of that choice is the Labour party, and sometimes the Liberal party, in the local town halls.

Mr. Hinchliffe: In view of the fact that elderly people from the Minister's constituency were in the High Court last month defending their residential accommodation and that elderly and disabled people were in the High Court again last week defending their care services, what steps are the Government taking to address the serious difficulties currently facing vast numbers of users and carers? The Minister's own figures show that, since the care changes, one third of local authorities have been forced to cut home care, half have cut meals on wheels and more people are now entering institutional care. Is it any wonder that there is a total lack of public confidence in the Government's care policies?

Mr. Bowis: No one has required those authorities to cut anything. Some Labour authorities are making a hash of managing their existing resources and they are not exerting the good financial control that is required' of them, not just by the Government and the taxpayer, but clearly by the Audit Commission. The Audit Commission has also pointed out that, if local authorities managed their affairs better, half a billion pounds would be available for front-line services. I cannot understand why, if individuals want to choose between the sectors and if the Audit


Commission believes that that is in the best interests of the people who are being placed, the Labour party should reject it because it is the way to ensure good value for money and good services. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. It is very difficult to hear those hon. Members whom I have called to speak.

Expenditure (Hospitals)

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money she plans to spend on hospital building and refurbishment in the current financial year. [27723]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Government capital spending on hospital and community health services is planned to be £1.8 billion in 1995–96, of which some two thirds is expected to be on hospital building and refurbishment. Capital spending stands at 59 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79.

Mr. Lidington: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that list will include the £23.5 million rebuilding and refurbishment programme for Stoke Mandeville hospital in my constituency, work on which is due to start this December? Will she continue to encourage national health service trusts to work in partnership with the private health sector wherever possible so that private health resources can be added to the very considerable sums already contributed by the taxpayer?

Mrs. Bottomley: I can, indeed, confirm that the Stoke Mandeville project is very much in the main stream. It is a major programme, offering substantial further improvements at a nationally, indeed internationally, famous hospital.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the private finance initiative offers substantial further advantages, to extend the capital programme in the NHS. That is another aspect over which the Labour party would cut off its nose to spite its face. It is not prepared to work with the private sector, and would allow patients to suffer to please its union paymasters.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State share my concern that we may not be obtaining value for money? Many capital projects are finished over time and over budget.

Mrs. Bottomley: Achieving value for money on capital programmes is fundamental to the good management of the NHS, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that now, cost overruns and time overruns run to the tune of 7 and 9 per cent. When the Labour party was in power, it was about 30 per cent. It is a further example of substantially improved management in the NHS, from which patients and staff are benefiting.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 June. [27741]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Dr. Jones: Yesterday the Prime Minister agreed that the public are opposed to Brent Spar being dumped at sea. Today we know that the Government's own scientists also oppose that. Why were their objections overruled? Surely it is now time for the Prime Minister to act to prevent that dangerous dumping.

The Prime Minister: With respect to the hon. Lady, she is a little behind the events of today. The views of a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food scientist were completely misreported in this morning's press, and the scientist involved has now issued a statement and appeared on television to clarify the matter. He has made it entirely clear that the concerns expressed in the leaked paper expressly did not apply to deep-sea disposal, which is what is proposed.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend recall Kipling's lines:
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you"—(Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order to hear Mr. Davies.

Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend remember the confusion that was caused when the Bosnian Serbs seized hostages a few weeks ago, when some people even suggested that we should beat a retreat or give in to blackmail? Will my right hon. Friend recognise that the clearsightedness and resolution that he displayed then have saved not only the lives of the hostages, but the credibility of NATO? Will he now take a little credit where it is so obviously deserved?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and for reminding me of one of Kipling's great poems. I am of course delighted that all of the peacekeepers have now been released, and I take the opportunity to make it clear to the House that no deal whatsoever has been entered into to ensure their release. That would not have been the wish of the House, and no deal at all has been made. We also said that we would hold the Bosnian-Serb leaders personally responsible for their release. I cannot be certain whether that had an impact on their decision, but certainly they were in no doubt whatsoever that, if any harm had come to our hostages, or indeed other United Nations hostages, we would most certainly have held them personally responsible for that harm.

Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall that, shortly before the Scott inquiry, he said that Parliament had not been misled deliberately or otherwise, and that the guidelines for the sale of arms to Iraq had not been changed after 1985? Is that still the Government's position today?

The Prime Minister: I recall very clearly what I said about that. I also recall that I set up an inquiry by Sir Richard Scott so that he might examine that to determine whether or not he felt that that was correct. That report is in the course of being considered at the moment. I have


made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that I have no intention of commenting on the substance of that until Sir Richard has reached a final conclusion and has reported.

Mr. Blair: What I was asking the right hon. Gentleman to do was to state the Government's position, not to anticipate the findings of the report. [Interruption.] Fair enough, if he says that he has to await the report, then may we have his categoric assurance that if the report does find that Parliament has been misled he will abide by its findings and act upon them?

The Prime Minister: Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman is unaware of the requirement set down clearly in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". I approved and published that guidance, so it is a matter of open report to the House. I have made it clear in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" that Ministers who deliberately mislead Parliament should resign, except in exceptional circumstances like a devaluation—the Lord Callaghan example is a case in point. That remains the case.
We are witnessing at the moment a series of quite malicious leaks. I say "malicious" because I believe that they should be seen for what they are. They are intended to blacken Ministers' names before they have responded to a provisional report with which they strongly disagree. I hope that in future people will see these leaks for what they are and will await the final report from Sir Richard Scott.

Mr. Blair: What I am trying to establish is whether the right hon. Gentleman will abide by the findings of the Scott inquiry. I accept that he has said that if Ministers are found to have misled the House deliberately they will resign; but will the right hon. Gentleman abide by the findings of the Scott inquiry on that point? If he does not, and rejects them, that will put the final seal of contempt on a disintegrating Government.

The Prime Minister: I was wondering in which direction the soundbite would go today—now we know what the first two questions were intended to lead up to. I set up Sir Richard Scott's inquiry; I am awaiting the report; I will consider it; and I will make my judgment when I have got it and seen it.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern of many of my constituents about malpractice in local government? Has he seen the recent independent report on Monklands district council showing that, where the Labour party is in power, it cannot be trusted not to abuse it?

The Prime Minister: Following the right hon. Gentleman's question, my hon. Friend was called at an appropriate moment. On a day when we have heard yet more Labour accusations based on rumours and leaks, here, with this report on Monklands, we have a clear case of how Labour in office runs its own affairs. I have seen the reports on how the council apparently targeted spending for political reasons, on jobs for the boys and jobs for their families. It is no good the Labour party trying to get off the hook; this council is run by Labour councillors. It is not an isolated example: Lambeth council, Birmingham council, Monklands council—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends add to the list.
If the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is so concerned about open government, will he say today that he will publish the earlier, secret report held by the

Labour party into Monklands council, which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has consistently refused to make public?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Madam Speaker: Order. Sit down.

Mr. Ashdown: Given that the Government are prepared to allow Shell to dump the toxic waste from Brent Spar into the sea, will the Prime Minister tell us how the Government intend to stop the other 50 North sea oil rigs waiting for disposal being similarly disposed of, by dropping them into some vast underwater toxic scrap-metal dump off the coast of Scotland?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman should know, there are a number of international commitments before there can be disposal of any oil-bearing rigs of this sort. We have complied with all the requirements under the Oslo convention, the London convention and the Ospar—Oslo-Paris—convention. In each and every case we shall do precisely the same. No case will be precisely similar, and on each occasion we will make a judgment of what we believe to be the right environmental way to dispose.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of an illustrious predecessor, who was a great patriot and a good European, who said that the dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on? Does he take those words to heart? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. We must hear the answer to this one.

The Prime Minister: I am delighted that my campaign for literacy is bearing fruit in all directions.

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 June. [27743]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Evans: Does the Prime Minister agree that President Chirac's cynical resumption of nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific is treating the people of that region with contempt and putting at risk the health of their children and children yet unborn? If the French must have nuclear testing, why cannot they do it in central France?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether that will add to the hon. Gentleman's European credentials. The decision on nuclear testing is not an easy one for the French. It is for them and they have made it. The principal objective at the conclusion of the short series of tests is the early conclusion of an indefinite comprehensive test ban treaty. President Chirac has confirmed his commitment to it, we are committed to it and I hope we can achieve it as speedily as possible.

Mr. Gale: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study reports in the press indicating that Opposition spokesmen now have the effrontery to suggest that it was the fault of the Scottish Office for not conducting an inquiry into the Monklands issue that led to the present position? Is it


possible that the Scottish Office might have been unwise to accept assurances from Labour Front-Bench spokesmen that nothing was wrong?

The Prime Minister: I must confess to my hon. Friend that I am not entirely sure of the background, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has today written in detail to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), asking him to make public all the information that he has and that so far has been kept private. I hope that, in the new spirit of openness, the Labour party will respond immediately and comprehensively to that request.

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 June. [27744]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clarke: Does the Prime Minister agree that discrimination against disabled people is wrong? [Interruption.] The House and the country will note that the Conservative party does not seem interested in the concerns of 10,000 of my constituents. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Mr. Shaw. Order now. [Interruption.] Order. I shall have silence in the House when Members are asking questions. I call Mr. Clarke.

Mr. Clarke: Does the Prime Minister agree that discrimination against disabled people is wrong, whatever its nature and origin? If he does, will he join me in congratulating the House of Lords on extending the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Bill by a majority of two to one, so that any discrimination against disabled people, whatever its origins, will be seen as unfair, unjustified and rightly unlawful?

The Prime Minister: I have always opposed discrimination in all its forms and the Disability Discrimination Bill sent by this House to the other place, promoted by this Government, is the greatest single advance in disability legislation that we have seen for a long time—perhaps the greatest single advance on any occasion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is the case, for he knows it to be so. If he is concerned about discrimination, he might also be concerned that people ought not to discriminate in favour of their relatives on his local council. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. There is no injury time.

Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the abolition of independent funding and management of grant-maintained schools destroys the whole notion of grant-maintained status, and that no amount of words from Labour Members will be able to hide their instinctive hostility towards grant-maintained schools?

The Prime Minister: I do find myself a very strong advocate of grant-maintained schools. I understand that the Labour party now wishes to channel grant-maintained funds through local education authorities, allowing the political opponents of grant-maintained schools to control the purse strings. It also seems to be prepared to stuff the grant-maintained schools' boards of governors with Labour party leaders from the local councils. So much for its professed concern about quangocracy. When it suits it, that is precisely what it will do. Having preached one thing, it practises another. It pretends that it favours grant-maintained schools with strings but, in reality, it is a string that will break the neck of the grant-maintained system.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath: Robert Law McCartney Esq., for North Down.

Determinate Sentences for Murder

Mr. Gary Waller: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the mandatory life sentence in respect of convictions for murder and to confer on courts the power to impose determinate sentences while retaining the power to impose sentences of imprisonment for life.
We all like to believe that the British system of justice is the fairest in the world; that every accused person is assured of a fair trial and a fairly administered sentence. Yet I would like the House to compare that model with the following statement:
The judges at present are having to pass a sentence which in many cases is patently inappropriate and does not mean what it says. That does nothing to enhance the authority of the law. Nor does it allow them to carry out their proper, albeit difficult function, namely to pass a sentence appropriate to the crime and to the criminal, whilst at the same time, as far as possible, protecting the public.
That was the conclusion reached by the Committee on the Penalty for Homicide, chaired by the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, and his words have been entirely endorsed by the present Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, giving evidence recently to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. They were both referring to the mandatory life sentence now condemned by nearly all the Appeal Court judges as inappropriate and unjust. Another severe critic is the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson.
My Bill seeks to abolish the mandatory life sentence, but to retain the availability of life imprisonment as a penalty, where it is necessary, especially in the interest of protecting the public or because of the seriousness of the crime. In many of those cases, life would genuinely mean life. Far from going soft on murder, my Bill would ensure that life imprisonment was taken to mark the utmost horror and gravity with which society regards some truly dreadful crimes.
The present mandatory life sentence is justified by some on the basis that it differentiates a unique crime. Homicide is a unique crime, in a sense, but there must be many cases of manslaughter that are devised essentially to avoid the mandatory life sentence that would inevitably follow a conviction for murder.
There can surely be nobody in the House who thinks that all those who are convicted of murder are equally culpable, whether they be on the one hand a moors murderer, or on the other a loving husband convicted of the mercy killing of his wife; on the one hand the bank robber who in cold blood shoots a police officer in trying to make good his escape, or on the other Private Lee Clegg. Lord Ackner has described as "rubbish" the suggestion that all murders are equally wicked, and he is right.
In requiring judges to pass a sentence of life imprisonment in all cases, we not only devalue what should be the true meaning of a life sentence, but we bring about quite perverse outcomes. Even if the convicted person is released relatively soon, as in the case of a so-called "mercy killing" and perhaps Private Lee Clegg, he will be released only on licence and must live the rest of his life knowing that he may be recalled to prison at any time at the behest of the Home Secretary.
Among those who most detest the concept of the life sentence are many of the families of victims, and some of the organisations that represent them. In the case of a determinate sentence, they would know, because the decision would be announced in open court, that the person

responsible for the death of their loved one had been sent to prison, perhaps for a very long time. A life sentence today, however, is a meaningless concept and leaves open the possibility, as the brother of a murder victim complained on the BBC radio programme "Face the Facts", that the killer will soon be free to walk the streets of the neighbourhood as a result of an Executive decision.
In other cases, the relatives are cheated of a murder conviction because a verdict of manslaughter is substituted, perhaps on grounds of provocation, essentially because it enables a determinate sentence to be imposed in cases where a mandatory life sentence does not seem appropriate.
Some hon. Members may recall that the previous Bill that I introduced in the House sought to reinforce the opposition of the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethnics to the introduction of euthanasia in this country. The mandatory life sentence for murder is of assistance to the pro-euthanasia lobby, because the public think it manifestly unfair that a relative or friend responsible for a mercy killing—someone for whom we should all surely have the maximum sympathy—is charged with a crime that is bound to carry a penalty of life imprisonment. Yet if the judge had the power to pass a minimum sentence, to show that justice can be tempered with mercy, I think that everyone would rightly applaud. Thus it was that, among many other proposals that I support, the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics also recommended the introduction of determinate sentences for murder.
Determinate sentences would also enable the courts to deal more fairly with those who kill following a prolonged period of abuse over many years— what one might call the "Brookside" factor, which is well known to followers of the Channel 4 soap.
It used to be argued that discretion had to be left to the Home Secretary because judges sometimes passed unduly lenient sentences, but now, of course, the Attorney-General has the power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal if the sentence is considered unduly lenient. That would obviously be a vital safeguard in cases of murder, where public interest is often very great.
One of the criteria whereby I judge the existence of genuine civil liberties in a state is the separation of judicial and Executive powers. Justice should be done in open court, not by Ministers. Justice behind closed doors may or may not be justice denied; we just have no way of knowing. An example that highlights that defect is the case of Mohammed Riaz and Abdul Quayum Raja. Those men, Kashmiri separatists, were convicted of the murder of an Indian diplomat— a truly awful crime that came about as a result of a kidnapping that went wrong. The principal killers were never apprehended. Riaz was implicated as a captor of the victim, and that was sufficient for him to be charged and convicted of murder, although he was not present when the act was committed. After passing a sentence of life imprisonment, the trial judge recommended to the then Home Secretary that Riaz be released after no more than 10 years at the outside. Account should be taken of the fact that he had been brought into the conspiracy at a late stage. He was, the judge stated on the basis of the evidence, unlucky to find himself in his present position.
Although he had not seen the defendant in court, the Lord Chief Justice recommended to the Home Secretary that the tariff— the term fixed in the Home Office—


should be increased to 16 years. Initially, the Home Secretary did not reveal what tariff had been set, but, when required to do so as a result of a landmark court decision, he stated that he had set a tariff of 20 years—double that recommended by the trial judge.
Many people of Kashmiri origin are resident in this country. What must they think of a sentence passed in such a case, not by a court but by a politician? Might they not think, as many evidently do, that the Home Secretary's agenda incorporated a wish to satisfy the Government of India—a country with immense trade potential? No one can refute that argument, for the simple reason that the decision was made in private by the Executive power of this country.
I suspect that, if sentences in some third-world country were imposed not by judges but by Cabinet Ministers, there would be many signatures to an all-party early-day motion and many letters would be on their way from the House to the ambassador concerned. Should we not seek to put our own house in order, too?
The mandatory life sentence creates anomalies. It undervalues the seriousness with which we should consider the most dreadful murders, while subjecting those who deserve some sympathy to a perverse punishment. It leaves the country open to challenge in international courts. It undermines our argument that a free, unfettered judicial system is intrinsic to any liberal democracy.
The mandatory life sentence does the opposite of what it sets out to achieve, and it should go.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Max Madden and Sir Keith Speed.

DETERMINATE SENTENCES FOR MURDER

Mr. Gary Waller accordingly presented a Bill to abolish the mandatory life sentence in respect of convictions for murder and to confer on courts the power to impose determinate sentences while retaining the power to impose sentences of imprisonment for life: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

Points of Order

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received an application for a private notice question from either the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) or the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell)?

Madam Speaker: Order. I do not divulge what applications come my way. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This morning's edition of The Scotsman reports that council officials in Monklands say that the practices there—or, rather, malpractices—are widespread in Scottish local government. Have you�ž

Madam Speaker: Order. What has that to do with me?

Mr. Heald: The Nolan inquiry, Madam Speaker, was set up to look into standards in public life. Would it be in order for the Nolan committee to widen its inquiry to take account of the malpractices—

Madam Speaker: Order. The Nolan committee is nothing to do with me.

Orders of the Day — Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We have in our keeping the welfare of people who are ill. It is never an easy task, but when the illness is of the mind, it is one of the most difficult areas of policy and practice to get right. Mental illness is often invisible and unpredictable; it can come upon us suddenly, without warning, or steadily over a period of deteriorating months and years. It can usually be managed and can often be cured, but it strikes fear into the hearts of some and many see it as a stigma.
Our aim in the Bill is to improve the care of that small number of severely mentally ill people sometimes characterised by the term "revolving door"—people who need additional supervision of their care if they are to live successfully in community settings. We must keep their needs at the forefront of our minds. Alongside that, we must never forget our obligation to reassure the public as a whole that such supervised care will be effective, because without public confidence and support, mental health policy cannot function in the interests of patients. It is a chicken-and-egg scenario—the egg of mental health policy and the chicken of supportive public opinion.
The Bill is not and must not be seen as an isolated measure, but it is a key component in a coherent and comprehensive strategy by which we seek to address all aspects of the needs of mentally ill people, their families and communities.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister says that the Government's approach is comprehensive. I see nothing in the Bill that addresses the real difficulty that is faced by many people suffering from mental illness in getting adequate services from general practitioners within their communities. Many GPs have not been trained to deal with some of the more complicated aspects of mental illness. How does that aspect fit into the legislation?

Mr. Bowis: It fits in very well. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter, not in terms of the wording of the Bill, but in terms of how it will operate. Perhaps we can discuss that in Committee, because we shall want to make sure that the issue that he mentions is included in the guidance that will accompany the Bill when, we hope, it receives the support of Parliament and Royal Assent. We shall ensure that such care is covered.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I assure my hon. Friend that GPs in my constituency, which has a long tradition of caring for people in the community and was the first to initiate 24-hour nursing care, are very well trained to look after people who have been discharged from our local hospital.

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the good work that is carried out by many general

practitioners and community nurses and others, particularly community health nurses, who work with people with mental illness and with the severely mentally ill whom we are debating today. That is not to say that any of us should underestimate the need to improve co-operation among general practitioners and between all the agencies and professionals whom we seek to include in our care programme approach as we look after people in the community.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I should like to ask about children. Are the Scottish measures in the Bill compatible with those in the Children (Scotland) Bill? One of the concerns that has been raised with me is that, through this legislation, doctors and social workers would be able to apply to a sheriff to secure control of a child without having to refer to a children's hearing. Is that right? If it is, it would be a disgraceful state of affairs. I see that the Minister is getting advice.

Mr. Bowis: I am not getting advice at the moment. I shall return to the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is the sort of issue that we might debate in Committee, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman is volunteering to join in that debate. When one drafts legislation, one takes account of all the needs of other legislation and of other family members. Although on the whole we are debating adults with severe mental illness, children in families may also need our protection. I certainly take the hon. Gentleman's point.
The Bill is a Great Britain measure, which amends both the Mental Health Act 1983 for England and Wales and the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. The most important of its provisions, on which I intend to concentrate in my opening speech, are those to introduce the new power of supervised discharge, which in the Bill is called "after-care under supervision" for England and Wales, and the broadly equivalent "community care orders" for Scotland. The other provisions deal with leave of absence for detained patients and the return of those who are absent without leave.
The words "Patients in the Community" in the Bill's title precisely reflect the way in which the emphasis on the care of mentally ill people has shifted over the past 30 years. There is now a quite different landscape from the one that was characterised so vividly by Enoch Powell in his description of the old, isolated mental hospitals. The change to a service that concentrates on helping people to maintain or resume life in their own homes has, overwhelmingly, been for the better. No one who knows what the old days were like would really want to go back to them. We have promoted the new approach vigorously, both by the increased resources that we have devoted to it and by the initiatives that we have taken to develop it as a policy. In 1979, we were spending on mental illness services provided by hospital, community health and social services some £450 million. In 1992–93, the latest year for which we have full figures, that had risen to £2,350 million, a real terms increase of £1 billion.
Let me make it absolutely clear that the trend to community-based services does not mean that no mentally ill people should ever be in hospital. Many will need access to hospital services, some will need long-term in-patient care and some will need secure care. We need the right balance between hospital and community-based services, and between care and control on the one hand and respect for civil liberties on the other.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who has probably done more for the interests of people with mental health problems than any of her predecessors—and we should pay tribute to that—announced her review of the present legal powers, she expressed a concern shared by many people that in some respects those elements may have got a bit out of balance, or, to put it another way, that the pendulum may have swung too far in favour of civil liberties and away from care and control.
As a society, we certainly owe a duty to mentally ill people to protect both them and other people from the harm that their illness may cause, and to ensure that each person's quality of life is enhanced by the right balance and blend of asylum and independent living that is appropriate in his or her case. If we are to make a success of care in the community, we must ensure that the community has confidence that the balance and blend are right. That means ensuring that both mentally ill people and other people are properly protected from the risks that they may present.
The tragic cases that have occurred concern us not only because of the failing that they represent in the services for the person who is ill, but because of the damage that they do to public confidence. As a matter of actual fact, the public are not now at greater risk from mentally ill people than they were in the past; indeed, the number of mentally disordered people convicted of homicide under the Homicide Act 1957 has fallen significantly in the past 20 years. Nevertheless, our ability to manage successfully patients who present the greatest potential risk both to themselves and to other people is crucial, both as a test of the effectiveness of the policy and in ensuring that public confidence is maintained.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I agree with the Minister that no responsible Government can ignore the Silcock and Clunis tragedies; they were indeed tragedies that had to be urgently addressed. However, he is saying that the whole approach to dealing with mental illness has changed, and rightly so, since the introduction of community care. Does he accept, however, that the 1983 and 1984 Acts to which he referred were cast at a time when treatment was undertaken on a wholly different basis? Does he not therefore think that it is right that the Department, as well as dealing with some of the short-term, immediate problems, should be considering in a fundamental manner the way in which we cast the legislative framework within which mental illness is treated?

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman has a point and it has been made to us by many, not least the Mental Health Act Commission. I and my right hon. Friend have thought about that point deeply and we have said clearly—as I told a conference held with the Law Society on the Act—that we have an entirely open mind on the need to review the Act as a whole. I say that genuinely. The time is coming when we shall need to consider the Act to ensure, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, that the environment and times in which we live, work and help mentally ill people are still as relevant to that legislation, and that that legislation is as relevant to our current practice, as we would like. We shall think hard about when the time is right for a wider review. Meanwhile, it was right that we should come through with our policies and strategy for the 10-point plan and the Bill, and that we should get them bedded in; then we can see how we should progress further.
Central to our policy is a clearly defined relationship between the community and hospital services. Under the care programme approach, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) referred, and which we started to introduce in 1991 for all patients receiving care from specialist psychiatric services in the community, mental health service providers must co-operate with local social services departments to deliver a package of care to meet the individual needs of severely mentally ill people. Every patient covered by the care programme approach must have a named key worker, and we have given increasing attention to ensuring that services are properly managed and organised and that legal powers are properly understood and applied. However, the cases to which I referred highlighted a need for more effective legal powers in some cases.
Many of the issues were brought to a head by events in the early part of 1993. Even before the subject started to hit the headlines, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had made clear her concern about the need for new legal powers. Indeed, by chance an account of her views was published the day before the incident involving the patient in the lions' cage.
My right hon. Friend was not alone in identifying that need. The review of legal powers governing the care of mentally ill people in the community, which she announced in January 1993, took as its starting point the proposals for community supervision orders that had just been published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, having been developed by a college working party under the distinguished chairmanship of Professor Bluglass.
However, our proposals for supervised discharge involve some significant modifications to the approach that the college proposed. In the first place, supervised discharge gives legal backing to the key features of the care programme approach, including both the power to supervise a patient and the reciprocal obligation on the national health service and local authorities to provide the after-care services that the patient needs.
Secondly, the review team had to consider the impact of the European convention on human rights, and that led it to propose an approach different from that of the college for dealing with the case of a patient who refuses to accept supervision in the community. That also reflected the consideration of the college's proposals by the Select Committee on Health, which concluded that
the notion at the core of the College's proposals that a patient could consent in advance to compulsory treatment raises so many legal ethical, philosophical and logical complications as to be unworkable".
When the college responded to our proposals, it was content to go along with the changes that we had made to its original approach.
The review team's proposals for supervised discharge were published in August 1993 as part of my right hon. Friend's 10-point plan—a plan that I am glad to say has now largely been implemented. Soon after the review report, we published the revised Mental Health Act code of practice, which cleared up a serious misunderstanding that had developed about the criteria for admitting someone to hospital under the Act, and had led some professionals to interpret them too narrowly. Last year, we issued firmer guidance to ensure that patients are discharged from hospital only when it is safe for that to be done, and when proper arrangements have been made for their after-care.
We launched a training initiative for key workers, and we shall soon publish the clinical standards advisory group's report on schizophrenia. We also instituted a special study by the mental health task force of problems affecting the services for several mentally ill people in London, with a follow-up report.
In preparation for the Bill, we consulted widely on the proposals, and in the responses that we received, support for the principle of the new power substantially outweighed opposition to it. I am sure that that will be one of the key issues for debate as the Bill goes through the House, but I believe that we have got the balance right.
The Bill benefited greatly from the constructive cross-party scrutiny that it received in another place. We were grateful to the occupants of the Labour and Liberal Front Benches, and to the many noble Lords from all parties and from none who contributed. I am pleased that we could accept the principles of several of the amendments moved by, among others, my noble Friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Campbell of Croy and by Lord Carter, Lord Carmichael, the Earl of Mar and Kellie and Baroness Jay.
Those amendments covered important matters, such as the requirement to consult a patient's nearest relative, the qualifications of the doctor who is to act as the responsible medical officer in the community, and the duty to give written information to a patient about both the effect of after-care under supervision and his appeal rights. I believe that those changes have significantly improved what was already a good Bill, and we are grateful for the help that we received from all sides.
I hope that we can look forward to a similarly constructive scrutiny of the Bill in this House, but I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed by the position that the Labour party appears to intend to adopt. It seems that Labour will not offer the Bill its support. Indeed, it has tabled an amendment that demonstrates its lack of alternative proposals. I notice that Labour has even deleted references to new resources from the original text of its amendment. I would like to take this opportunity to remind Labour Members of the description of the Bill at different stages in the proceedings in another place by their noble Friend Baroness Jay, as both necessary and useful, and of Baroness Farrington, who gave her support to the Bill's principles and the important issues that it seeks to tackle.
If I really wanted to look for support from the Opposition in another place, I would look to the Liberals' noble Friend Earl Russell who, on Third Reading, said:
I can recognise a good government Bill when I see it."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 May 1995; Vol. 564, c. 195.]
We are happy to receive those accolades.
I refer, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did at Health questions, to the missing face in our discussions, Lord David Ennals. I always enjoyed his company and discussing and debating with him. Sometimes we agreed; often we did not. Sometimes he was mischievous; he was always forgivable. We shall miss his robust contributions to this Bill, as we shall to many others.
We have continued to develop our approach in the light of experience and new developments. We have in particular taken very full account of the recommendations

of the inquiry into the treatment and care of Christopher Clunis, which was chaired by Miss Jean Ritchie, QC; and of the lessons learned from the Robinson inquiry, chaired by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, QC.
As a direct response to one of the main recommendations of the Ritchie inquiry, we have prepared a comprehensive inter-agency guide for purchasers concerned with the care of severely mentally ill people and we shall issue that shortly, after wide consultation.
I shall now refer to the main thrust of the Bill, dealing first with the England and Wales provisions. Clause 1 introduces the new power of supervised discharge. Some 20 patients might be eligible for a supervised discharge in the average health district at any one time. The new provisions formalise the supervision in the community of previously detained patients so that they receive after-care in line with the care programme approach. There will be full consultation with all concerned, a written care plan, and a requirement to undertake regular reviews of the patient's needs and the services being provided.
Supervised discharge will be available for patients who are suffering from a mental disorder as described in the 1983 Act and who no longer need to be detained, but who could present a substantial risk of serious harm to themselves or to other people if they did not receive the after-care services they need. The patient's responsible medical officer—the RMO—will make a supervision application to the health authority, supported by recommendations from another doctor and an approved social worker. Before doing so, the RMO must consult the patient and any informal carer, as well as the professional care teams in hospital and the community. Unless the patient objects, the RMO must also consult the patient's nearest relative.
Before accepting the supervision application, the health authority is required to consult the local authority that is jointly responsible for providing after-care services under the existing section 117. When the application is accepted, all those who have been consulted about it must be informed and the patient told in writing of his right of appeal to a mental health review tribunal.
The patient's medical care in the community then becomes the responsibility of a designated community responsible medical officer, who must be approved under section 12 of the 1983 Act as having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder. To supervise the patient's receipt of the after-care services, a supervisor will have been nominated, who is likely to be the patient's key worker under the care programme approach and usually a community mental health nurse.
Clause 1 also defines requirements that the section 117 bodies may impose on the patient: to live at a specified place and to attend specified locations at specified times for medical treatment or rehabilitation services. They may require the supervisor to be given access to the patient where he or she is living. To back up those requirements, the Bill provides a power to convey the patient to a place where he or she is required to live or attend. That is essentially an emergency or fall-back measure for patients temporarily or uncharacteristically unwilling or unable to comply with their care plan requirements.
The power cannot be used to require the patient to accept medication in the community, and compulsory medication is no part of the Bill's provisions. I know that that is something that some, including the British Medical


Association, would like, but we are advised that it would risk being in breach of our human rights convention obligations, as well as being opposed by substantial bodies of medical opinion.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: One of the principal causes for concern about the Bill is the way in which the power to convey will work in practice and, indeed, what the purpose of that power is. Once the patient—presumably with a degree of reluctance—has been conveyed to the appointed place, could the Minister say what it is intended will happen next?

Mr. Bowis: I can make that clear. The purpose is that the patient can continue, with his wholehearted consent, with the care programme. As I said, that power will apply in cases where the patient, temporarily or uncharacteristically, is unwilling or unable to comply. The power to convey is nothing new; it is in the Mental Health Act 1983, as the hon. Gentleman knows. If the patient has been conveyed and is still unwilling to comply with the care plan, it is likely that he is coming to the point at which his case will need to be assessed in terms of whether the care plan is appropriate, whether supervised discharge is appropriate or whether the plan needs to be amended or revised. If it is not working, it may be that the person needs to be considered for return to hospital.

Mr. Brown: If the patient's case needed to be reassessed, would not that process happen anyway? Why is the power to convey necessary to act as a trigger? Is not it likely that somebody who has been compulsorily conveyed will not be very willing to take part in whatever is intended at the other end of the journey—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Would the Attendant kindly remove the bleeper from the Chamber?

Mr. Bowis: I do not think that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) was asking about absent friends. We are all, not least the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), grateful that it—[HON. MEMBERS: "A pacemaker?"]—whatever it is, has been removed.
The question is how we strengthen the supervision of the patient in the community; that is what it is all about. If we strengthen, a little, the arm of the supervisors so that they have the power to convey if a patient is temporarily reluctant, by the time he has reached the destination for treatment, employment, education or whatever, it is likely that he will have recovered his feelings about the programme and will go forward with it. If the power to convey does not work, there is a case for reassessing the patient and the supervised discharge. If it does work, it is an additional strengthening, which is helpful.

Mr. Jim Lester: I regard the Mental Health Act 1983 as one of the most fundamental pieces of legislation in which I have been involved, and I would not want to see it damaged. I remember that during the discussions on that Act, the principal problem was considered to be with schizophrenics. I understand from what my hon. Friend has said that the power to convey is mid-way between being in the community and having to be sectioned again; it is a halfway house. I have schizophrenic constituents who have decided that they are not mentally ill any more and who, rather than taking the medication, prefer to go to the pub and drink, which makes them more

aggressive. The power to convey is a middle way, whereby the care assistant can work with patients to get them back on to medication rather than sectioning them and thus taking them back into full-time care.

Mr. Bowis: That is absolutely right and I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with his knowledge of the discussions on the 1983 Act, for the experience that he brings to the subject. I do not know whether he is offering to pursue his interest and to join the discussions on this Bill; we would very much welcome his experience. He is right to say that the power to convey is a halfway measure that will encourage people to stick to the plan to which, after all, they have agreed before coming into the community. We do not want them to have to be taken back. Here we have one step that will encourage people to stick with the plan; we hope that the power will be used rarely.
Health authorities and local authorities are required to keep the after-care services under review and to modify them as necessary. If the patient refuses to accept the services, the next step is that consideration will be given to whether supervision is still appropriate—and, if so, whether the care plan needs to be amended—or whether the patient may need to be readmitted to hospital, using the powers in the 1983 Act.
Initially on discharge, a patient will be subject to supervision for a period of six months, which can be renewed for a further six months and then yearly. Before it is reviewed, there must again be full consultation with the patient and others concerned. The community RMO may end supervised discharge at any time, subject again to consultation. Supervised discharge will provide a legal framework for what should already be widespread good practice and well-co-ordinated services for the most vulnerable mentally disordered patients who have been detained under the 1983 Act.
Clause 2 ends a loophole in the 1983 Act relating to the return to hospital, or guardianship, of detained patients who are absent without leave. Restricted patients who abscond can be returned to hospital at any time, but under section 18(4), as it stands, an unrestricted patient who is not returned within 28 days simply ceases to be liable to be detained—regardless of the state of his or her mental health or the original period of detention.
That is clearly unsatisfactory, so the Bill provides for an unrestricted patient to be returned to hospital or guardianship at any time up to six months from going absent without leave, or within the existing period of detention or guardianship if that is longer. Where a patient is returned after more than 28 days, his or her condition must be reassessed by the RMO. The new limits improve the protection given by the Act to detained patients and the public while taking proper account of patients' civil liberties.
Clause 3 extends from six months to one year in England and Wales the period for which a detained patient may be given leave of absence from hospital. While the patient remains under the care of the hospital team, that time is commonly used as a preliminary period of rehabilitation, to establish whether he is ready to leave hospital care entirely. When we consulted on those proposals in 1993, there was widespread support for extending the leave of absence provision, giving a longer, more meaningful period in which to assess a patient's ability to cope with life in the community before formal discharge.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: What happens if a patient turns up at an accident and emergency department? The Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration heard recently of a patient being turned away from a department because it could not deal with the case. Are there any policies in place to deal with such patients turning up at A and E departments, because the departments have not got a clue what to do with them?

Mr. Bowis: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the part of the Bill about extended leave, to which I have just referred. If a patient on extended leave turned up at an accident and emergency department, hopefully the A and E department would contact the patient's care team.

Mr. Campbell: Hopefully?

Madam Speaker: Put it on the record, please.

Mr. Campbell: The Minister says "hopefully", but I am looking for something more concrete, so that when such people turn up at A and E departments, they are dealt with properly. The Select Committee heard that, on one occasion, a man was sent home and he hanged himself.

Mr. Bowis: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support for the Bill, because such instances are precisely why we need to have closer and tighter supervision of individuals. Supervisors may then keep much closer contact with the individual. Certainly, if word came that somebody had gone to hospital because on a particular day he or she was not feeling well, or whatever, the supervisor would immediately be required to contact the individual. A person may also be on a supervision register—which is a different issue and not to do with the Bill—which would alert people to the need to pay special attention to the patient.
That brings me to the Scottish provisions in the Bill. The Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 addresses the care and treatment of people with a mental disorder in Scotland. It is broadly similar to the Mental Health Act 1983 for England and Wales, but there are differences between the two Acts, which influence the way in which the proposals for community care orders in Scotland are framed.
Ministers and officials in Scotland, England and Wales have kept in close contact while developing the respective proposals for the care in the community of people with a mental disorder. However, with regard to extended leave under the 1984 Act, patients who are liable to be detained in hospital in Scotland may be granted leave of absence for a specified period of up to six months and that may be extended for further periods.
There are perceived to be legal problems with a patient who is liable to detention in hospital for treatment also being in the community on very extended leave of absence. A judicial decision raised the possibility of a successful legal challenge to the long-term use of leave of absence. A limit of 12 months for the use of successive periods of leave of absence is therefore also being introduced in clause 5 for Scotland.

Dr. Godman: May I point out to the Minister that there is a great deal of concern in Scotland—for it has already been voiced—about the failure of the Bill to define precisely the powers of the sheriff in making orders? Is a sheriff in such a case to be advised by a medical expert,

an assessor, or will he or she have to rely on guidelines from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)? One of the serious concerns that some of us have about the Bill is the poorly defined powers of the sheriff.

Mr. Bowis: I am sure that the strict issue of how the system will operate vis-à-vis the sheriff will be explored in greater detail in Committee. I intend to refer to the sheriff, the individual and the courts in a moment, so that may cover the points raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). If not, the Under-Secretary and I will do our best to offer reassurance to those who are concerned about the procedures in sheriff courts.
Community care orders are introduced by clause 4. They will provide for Scotland a safeguard broadly similar to supervised discharge in England and Wales. An application for a community care order may be made for a patient who is liable to be detained in hospital under section 18 of the 1984 Act, or is subject to a hospital order without special restrictions made by a court following his involvement in criminal proceedings. Before an application can be made, the patient must have been liable to be detained in hospital for at least 28 days.
The application process is triggered when the patient's responsible medical officer and another medical practitioner are satisfied that the patient's medical condition justifies a community care order, with a view to ensuring that the patient receives medical treatment and after-care services, for the patient's own health or safety or for the protection of others.
The responsible medical officer may then make an application to the sheriff for a community care order. That is supported by a second medical opinion and a recommendation from a mental health social worker. That mechanism may allay some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. The application to the sheriff reflects the role of the courts in the Scottish mental health system, where it is the sheriff who makes an order for detention in hospital and hears appeals against detention in hospital. The courts do not have that role in England and Wales.
The patient will be consulted before the application is made. He also has a right to be heard and call witnesses when the order is made. The order lasts initially for six months, after which it may be renewed for a further six months, then annually. When the order is first renewed, the patient is accorded a right of appeal to the sheriff. That is comparable to the arrangement for appeal against detention in hospital under the 1984 Act.
The community care order will specify the special medical officer who is to be principally concerned with the patient's medical treatment in the community while the order is in force; and it will specify the after-care officer, who is the social worker responsible for co-ordinating the provision of the patient's after-care services. The conditions of the order will also be specified. They may include a place of residence and a requirement to attend certain places for treatment or training, in common with the English and Welsh system.
The Scottish provisions include a new provision for reassessment in hospital. That will allow a person subject to a community care order to be returned to hospital for a period of up to seven days if his mental state has


deteriorated and gives, or is likely to give, grounds for serious concern regarding his health or safety, or the protection of other persons. The reassessment has to be approved by two doctors and the after-care officer must agree to it. Following a period of reassessment, the community care order may be continued or revoked, or an application for the patient's detention- in hospital may be made.
The Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland has a statutory role under the 1984 Act to exercise protective functions in respect of those who may, by reason of their mental disorder, be incapable of protecting their person or their interests. Those duties are specifically extended by the provisions of the Bill. The commission will also have the power to revoke community care orders in appropriate cases. That is entirely consistent with its role in respect of patients detained in hospital subject to guardianship.
There will be no power under community care orders to administer medication in the community without the patient's consent. I make that clear because there appears to have been some misunderstanding about what is being proposed.
Clause 6 is the equivalent for Scotland to clause 3 for England and Wales. It makes equivalent provisions for detained patients or people subject to guardianship in Scotland who abscond, to be taken into custody and returned within their current period of detention or guardianship or within six months, whichever is later.
Clause 7 is a Great Britain clause. It covers the short title, commencement and extent. The commencement date of 1 April 1996 will give sufficient time for regulations to be laid and made and for the necessary guidance to be issued to the NHS and local authorities. That is important because hon. Members have already raised issues today, which we shall have to consider as we issue guidance. We shall consult fully on that guidance before it is issued. The new powers are, of course, a significant addition to the existing arrangements. That guidance has an important part to play in ensuring that those powers are used properly and fairly.

Mr. Roger Sims: Will that guidance also include advice to clinicians who will be responsible for releasing patients into the community as a result of the Bill's provisions? My hon. Friend has already referred to certain tragic cases, some of which appeared to involve patients with a history of violence, who were, nevertheless, released into the community. Such cases have harmed the concept of care in the community for mental patients. I would be grateful for my hon. Friend's assurance that firm guidance will be given to those who will take such decisions.

Mr. Bowis: That is a fair point. As my hon. Friend knows, we have issued new clinical discharge guidance, and that is clearly making people think hard before discharging somebody from the hospital into the community. We must make sure that it is not inappropriate to discharge, and that there is a care team ready and waiting out there to receive each individual. The guidance will be issued after all the consultation, and will go to everyone involved in the planning and implementation of supervised discharge. That applies to people at the discharging end, as well as to those involved in the receipt of patients into community care. We shall make sure that that happens.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I thank the Minister, who has been generous in giving way. I would like to take him back to the situation in Scotland. There is concern at the lack of guidance to sheriffs on how they are to determine the conditions. Bearing in mind the fact that sheriffs in Scotland are not always uniform in how they arrive at their decisions, will there be a system to monitor sheriffs' acceptance of guidance from the relevant professionals in cases?

Mr. Bowis: It would be wise for me to distinguish between issuing guidance and seeking to guide the courts. We shall seek to issue guidance, which I hope the courts will find helpful, but it would be wrong—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting this—for us to seek to influence the decisions of the courts or the personal conclusions reached by sheriffs in the Scottish legal system. I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. We shall try to make sure that the guidance for, Scotland is clearly understood by all concerned, including those in the legal profession.
I believe that the Bill provides a coherent, firm, reasonable and compassionate approach to the needs of the most seriously mentally ill people. It strikes a careful balance between taking into account the rights of citizens and the duty we owe to them and the wider public, to protect them from the harm that mental illness can cause. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
That this House, acknowledging the widespread public concern about the plight of people with serious mental illness discharged into the community, and noting with concern the growing shortages in the availability of acute psychiatric beds and the considerable strain put on community care services for the mentally ill, declines to give the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [Lords] a Second Reading because the Bill will inevitably result in a reduction in the funds available for existing mental health services, because the Bill will not improve co-ordination between government departments in administering effective community care strategies or between professionals in devising individual care plans and because, as a consequence, the Bill fails to address the present shortcomings of community-focused care for people with mental illness.
Let me say from the outset that there is no division between ourselves and the Government on the two declared issues of principle involved in the matter. We believe that the Government have a duty to make provision for the protection of the public. We believe that it is the duty of the Government to make proper provision for the care and protection of their citizens who are ill, including those who are seriously mentally ill. These are objectives which the Government claim for themselves, as we do.
In introducing the Bill, the Minister set out some of the background, and I too would like to put the Bill in its context. It is a fact that discharged psychiatric patients who represent a threat, either to themselves or to the public, constitute a tiny proportion of all mentally ill people cared for in the community. Sadly, as the Minister said, all the evidence shows that mentally ill people are at greater risk of abuse or harassment from others than they are a danger to the public.
A number of high-profile cases have inspired the legislation that is before us today—the stabbing and killing of Jonathan Zito by Christopher Clunis in 1992,


the murder of occupational therapist Georgina Robinson and the injuries received by Ben Silcock after he climbed into the lions' enclosure at London zoo. Those are three examples of community care going terribly wrong, and that is the issue which—in my view—the House should be addressing today.
It is, of course, important not to let those terrible incidents go by without attempting to draw conclusions about how they might have been averted. It is equally important to retain a sense of just how atypical those cases are. It is the view of the parliamentary Labour party—in this we are at one with the Government—that we should move from institution-based care for the mentally ill to care in the community. We acknowledge the problems that have arisen as a result of that policy, but we advocate efforts to solve those problems and to move forward rather than retreat or return to the old-fashioned way of containing the mentally ill in large, anonymous and undignified asylums.
In enabling Parliament to consider important issues such as how best to protect the public and how best to care for the mentally ill, we are assisted by a number of very thorough and well-informed inquiries into the individual incidents that have occurred as well as into more general issues. The various reports about the recent tragedies have served two important functions: they have identified failings in the community care system, and they have made comprehensive recommendations to address those failings.
The very valuable and thorough "Report of the Inquiry into the Care and Treatment of Christopher Clunis"—which no less a person than the Secretary of State for Health described as "essential reading"—offers some guidance. The report does not pin responsibility for the incident on any one individual involved in the care of Christopher Clunis, but indicates a range of problems besetting the community care system. The authors do not argue that the Christopher Clunis case was an exception. They say:
we are very concerned that these failures may well be reproduced all over the country, in particular in poor inner cities".
The report contained a range of criticisms. Most importantly, it criticised poor liaison between different agencies, the failure of the responsible authorities to act upon warning signals, and the failure to provide social workers to assess new referrals and provide supervision.
The report made special mention of the lack of psychiatric beds in London. The number of psychiatric beds in the capital has halved in the past decade. London also has fewer medium-secure unit places per head of population than most other regions, even though there is a disproportionate number of mentally ill people living particularly in the inner-city areas of the capital. The report also mentions the shortage of suitable accommodation providing a supportive environment to enable patients to readjust to life in the community and avoid admission to hospital.
The Clunis report does not stand in isolation. The Health Select Committee, in its report "Better off in the community? The care of people who are seriously mentally ill", which was published in March 1994, concluded that
levels of performance nationwide are highly uneven".

It repeated many of the concerns that were raised by the inquiry into the Clunis case. "The Falling Shadow", the report on the killing of Georgina Robinson, which was published in January this year, pointed to a number of mistakes made by staff at the Edith Morgan centre in Torbay. The authors went on to argue that
much of the maladministration and malpractice derived from a fundamentally flawed statutory framework".
It went on to propose, as does the Labour party, a thorough revision of the Mental Health Act 1983 and the consequent legislation for Scotland. The authors are not alone in calling for a new Act. The chairman of the Law Commission recently described the law in that area as
now out of date and full of gaps".
We contend that this Bill does not fill those gaps adequately. The Matthew Trust report entitled "Victims of Care", which was issued in February 1995, had much of value to say to the House. It is a powerful report which tells a selection of very moving personal stories of mentally ill people who sought financial help from the trust having been turned away by all other agencies and charities. The report concludes:
the sweeping changes in the management of care appears to be putting vulnerable people even more at risk".
The House should concern itself with that issue.
Today we have to decide whether the Bill tackles those significant problems. The purpose of our amendment is to say that it does not. The reports to which I referred—there are several others—provide an accurate critique of the condition of community care for mentally ill people. They point to many problems and a range of solutions. Each report, as one would expect, offers a slightly different perspective, but it is perfectly possible to notice where the common ground lies. It does not lie in the Bill before us. It is the duty of the House to establish whether the Bill adequately tackles those widely accepted shortcomings of community care for mentally ill people.
In summary, the shortcomings are as follows. There is a lack of co-ordination between the different departments and agencies responsible for providing community care services. The Bill will not improve that. There is poor recording of incidents that might serve as a predictor of future dangerous behaviour. The report into the Clunis case says:
Despite the fact that an accurate history is widely recognised to be invaluable in assessing a patient's dangerousness, we found time and again either violent incidents were minimised or omitted from records, or referred to in the most general of terms in discharge summaries.
The report had a fair amount to say about the role of the police in those matters as well as the role of other health care professionals.
Behavioural patterns are probably the best predictor of future behaviour that it is possible to obtain. Therefore, one would have supposed that the Minister might have made some mention of it in his speech and that the Bill might make some special mention of it; neither is the case.
However, the Minister did refer to resources as an issue. The allocation of resources at the moment fails to take into account need, and results in often desperate shortages in deprived inner-city districts. The Audit Commission report, headed, "Finding a Place", demonstrates that need can vary from district to district by as much as four or five times.
As a proportion of total expenditure in the national health service, spending on mental health services has decreased in the past three years from 12.3 per cent. in 1988–89 to 10.8 per cent. in 1993–84—I have the answer given by the Secretary of State to a parliamentary question as recently as 9 June 1995. That is despite repeated assurances from Ministers that mental health services are a priority.
A study of all 18 districts in north London found acute psychiatric bed occupancy rates increasing from 94 per cent. in 1990 to 101 per cent. in 1993, with some units running to an occupancy rate of more than 120 per cent. The Royal College of Psychiatrists believes that an 85 per cent. occupancy rate is optimal.

Mr. David Nicholson: Of course there will be interest and concern, as the Bill proceeds through the House, in the resource arguments; I do not deny that for a moment. I was interested in the percentages that the hon. Gentleman gave a moment ago. That may be an example of an occasion when statistics mislead, because between 1988–89 and 1993–94 there was a massive expansion of resources in the national health service as a whole, and therefore the percentages that the hon. Gentleman gave mislead. Probably the absolute amounts of money going to mental health increased substantially between those years

Mr. Brown: It is a broader argument and is of course one of the issues that are very much in contention between the parties. However, extra resources that have gone to the national health service from the mid-1980s to the present day have been sucked into a spiralling bureaucracy and into the installation of the internal market rather than being spent on patient care. I do not want to broaden the argument; I would prefer to focus on the Bill but, if the Minister wishes to broaden it out, I am happy to allow him.

Mr. Bowis: The Minister never broadens anything if he can help it, but he is certainly interested in getting at the facts. The hon. Gentleman referred to a parliamentary question. If he had read that carefully, he would have read the caveats that those figures were not comparable for those years. I gave the actual figure, and I gave it in both ways. First, when we came into office, £450 million was being spent on mental health services—social services and health together—and that has now increased to £2,350 million. Secondly, I gave him the real terms increase, which was £1 billion. That is significant extra money going into the national health service and mental health care.

Mr. Brown: I am just quoting the Minister's parliamentary answer back at him. I am not responsible for answering the question; all I did was ask it. The Minister says that there is a caveat relating to the capital programme. Still, the way the Government choose to compel the NHS to deal with these matters in internal budgets means a reduction in both percentage and real terms. If provision is adequate, perhaps the Minister will tell the House why the Secretary of State has to go and discuss these matters with the Government's senior Law Officers, and why people are trying to drag her before the courts to get these issues resolved. That does not sound to me like adequate provision—but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to defend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Bowis: I would certainly wish to defend the Secretary of State—and the facts. The facts are that the beds

to which the hon. Gentleman refers—medium-secure beds—were perceived as being needed by the Glancy committee in 1974, but when we came to office in 1979 not a single such bed had been provided. By the end of next year there will be about 1,200 such beds. That is a sign that the Government provide medium-secure beds when they are needed, to meet the needs of the courts, the prisons and the secure health services. The hon. Gentleman might pay tribute to that fact and ask why, in his period of government, nothing happened for five years.

Mr. Brown: My period of government has yet to come. I am looking forward to it, as are many in my party. If the polling evidence is to be believed, the British public are looking forward to it too.
The Minister tells us his view of the laws of supply and demand in the provision of psychiatric beds. The courts seem to be taking a different view. Perhaps the Minister is right and the rest of the world is wrong, but I doubt it. In any case, I wish to move on.
Another criticism that has been made and which we wish to make again today concerns the failure of the Mental Health Act 1983 to provide an adequate legal framework for today's community-focused mental health strategies. That view is not unique to the parliamentary Labour party. In a memorandum to the Secretary of State, her own Mental Health Act Commission accurately described the problem thus:
The incremental distancing of mental health services from those which pertained in the 1970s, and for which Parliament was appropriately legislating in the early 1980s, is such as to call for legislation, to match the substantially changed environment of mental health services, in the facilities for care and treatment, psychiatric practices and public expectation of the services for the mentally disordered.
The Bill addresses none of those central problems. Consequently, we believe that it represents a missed opportunity to deal with a number of clearly identified problems.
Professor Chris Thompson, registrar of the Royal College of Psychiatrists—the organisation that originally proposed the new community supervision order—wrote, referring to supervised discharge, which is the key component of this Bill:
To many psychiatrists and others it is the worst of both worlds. The mentally ill will be subject to the power of 'arrest' to no apparent purpose. Psychiatrists remain deeply sceptical and believe that the Bill will not provide the extra public safety which the Government is hoping for.
The supervised discharge idea to which Professor Thompson refers has been condemned by a range of groups representing the mentally ill, groups representing mental health professionals and carers, and civil liberties organisations too. If the Bill gets a Second Reading, we shall want to explore these matters in Committee—but clearly, the civil liberties issues must be treated seriously.
There are those, including MIND, who argue that the Bill contravenes the European convention on human rights, in particular the right to liberty, the right to respect for private life, and the right to exercise these rights free from discrimination on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, class or any other status. The key area of concern is the power to take and convey. The necessity of a power to convey a person under supervision to a place of treatment, training, education or residence specified under the terms of the supervision order is highly questionable. I do not understand how such a


power, which may be exercised by anyone nominated by the patient's supervisor, is appropriate for a co-operative and humane approach to community care. If the power is exercised against a patient's will, it is highly unlikely to encourage that patient's compliance with his or her treatment plan.
There is also a danger that the coercive elements of the new arrangements will compromise the important relationship of trust which ideally should exist between patients and carers. Parliament should not legislate to compromise that relationship.
The Minister has not yet explained to my satisfaction why the power to convey is necessary. In particular, he has not explained what it will achieve. It will certainly undermine the relationship between the carer and the patient.
A possible alternative might have been to look again at the use of guardianship for which the Mental Health Act already provides. It seems anomalous to have a new power of supervised discharge when such provision is already in place. It is at least worth the House exploring—perhaps in Committee if the Bill is read a Second time—whether greater use of guardianship would facilitate increased effective community care for the serious mentally ill and make supervised discharge unnecessary, particularly if attention were paid to patterns of behaviour.
I accept that guardianship affects a relatively small number of people. Only 326 people were placed under guardianship orders in 1993–94, but its use is increasing and the use of guardianship procedures rather than the rather coercive supervised discharge procedures might better make the Government's case.

Mr. Bowis: I shall return to guardianship a little later, if I succeed in catching your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the power to convey is a danger to civil liberties in respect of supervised discharge, why did Labour Front-Bench spokesmen suggest that it was missing from the guardianship procedures and advocate the power to convey for guardianship?

Mr. Brown: The Minister seems to have misunderstood my point. The power forcibly to convey is clearly a coercive power. The Minister was unable to explain what would happen at the end of the conveyance to a patient who had been aggravated by the use of a coercive measure. If the Minister could tell the House that when a patient had been conveyed, a particular outcome was necessary for the protection of the public or the well-being of the patient, he would be able to make a case, but the power exists in isolation, as if it were left over from an earlier examination of these matters, but without fitting into any overall scheme. The power exists to be used or not, but for no particular purpose.
The Minister has not explained to my satisfaction why forcible conveying will somehow help a patient's treatment or mental well-being. It seems to me that the opposite is likely to be the case.
The workability of supervised discharge has been widely questioned. It appears to be a proposal left over from the earlier consideration of options. The new provisions sit uneasily with the present joint health and social services arrangements for providing after-care

services under the care programme. The Bill effectively superimposes health authority-led powers on present procedures without, for example, allowing social services to refuse a supervision arrangement if services are not available or appropriate.
There is no role in the procedures before the House today for the Mental Health Act Commission, which could monitor patients under supervision orders. Everyone who has commented on the issue says that monitoring is of enormous importance. The commission is a special health authority with a statutory remit to monitor the care of patients detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act. It has requested its scope to be widened to include supervised discharge and guardianship. MIND and the Royal College of Psychiatrists support that request. As both organisations express the same point of view, it is incumbent on the House at least to take notice of it. It was part of the inquiry into the Clunis case.
The Minister gracefully acknowledged the unmet resource implications, although I may have misunderstood him. Most parts of the country would need substantial increases in services to meet the requirements of the Bill. Although the Bill is accompanied by a money resolution, it covers only the costs of the appeals process in England and Wales, but not in Scotland. The new money is provided to pay for professional advisers and lawyers, not for the direct care of the mentally ill.
The supervision orders may be made only in cases where the patient, being subject to after-care under supervision, is likely to receive the after-care services to be provided. If the after-care services are simply not in place—that will be the case in many inner-city areas—presumably it will not be possible for the patient to be discharged under a supervision order. If that will not be possible, perhaps when the Minister replies to the debate he will tell us what alternative procedure will be followed.
My final point concerns ethnic discrimination. There are some who believe that supervised discharge will be applied disproportionately to ethnic minorities. The evidence is that black people are more likely to be diagnosed as mentally ill and compulsorily detained under the Mental Health Act and less likely to receive adequate care after being discharged. All that combines to give the impression that the more coercive powers in the Bill will operate in a discriminatory way. I am certain that that is not the intention of the Minister or the Government, but it might happen and the House should not allow it.
Having outlined my objections to how the Bill will work in practice, I repeat that there is no issue of principle between the Government and the Opposition. We believe that Parliament has a duty to make provision for the protection of the public and to care for those citizens who are ill, including those who are seriously mentally ill. How we achieve those objectives is under discussion tonight. Our amendment and a more thorough-going review of the 1983 Act offer a better way, so I urge the House to support the amendment and decline to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I shall be brief. This is a good Bill, but if, as a result of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection hearing that I


said that, I find myself on the Standing Committee, I am sure that I shall be able to find masses of objections to it and speak for hours on end.
Quite properly, the Bill has been set in its historical context. I do not think that there will be much controversy about its history or the fact that the closure of the big asylums was intrinsically good. When I first entered Parliament 21 years ago, I had two big asylums in my constituency. Although I battled to save the, at that time, famous rehabilitation hospital, St. Wulstan's, for various reasons on which I shall touch, it was right to close such institutions in order to prevent people from becoming so institutionalised that they were lost to and forgotten by the community.
The issue arose, and still arises, as to exactly what should replace such institutions. Part of the controversy was the medical issue. The psychiatric profession's expertise is still underdeveloped, in both diagnostic and treatment terms. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), and I think the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), seemed to ask for some grand systematic solution which did not involve options and different institutional and legal approaches—or the least flexibility there—but that seems to discount the fact that there is much uncertainty in, above all, the medical profession about the way forward.
When I first joined the debate 20 years ago, the buzz phrase was "comparable facilities". The case for not shutting St. Wulstan's for 10 years was based on the fact that there were not considered to be comparable facilities. That concept seems to have been a little forgotten recently, but it deserves a place in the argument. As has been said, there is a clear role for some institutional treatment within the health service. To provide that in a modern, decentralised and humane way should clearly be an objective of any Government.
That concept needs to be revitalised from time to time. It has now been largely replaced by the concept of care in the community. My constituency was one of the first experimental areas for care in the community, so I have watched it develop over many years. Clearly, it is intrinsically a good thing that the mentally ill should be returned to a normal way of life, linked, if possible, to their relations and families.
However, care in the community has two implications. One, which is at the centre of the Labour party's concerns, and perhaps those of the Liberal Democrats, is back-up resources. I do not understand the phrase in the Labour party's amendment, which says:
the Bill will inevitably result in a reduction in the funds available for existing mental health services".
The opposite seems to be the case. Not only have resources for mental health risen by 40 per cent., or £1 billion, in real terms but, if there is any inevitability, because care in the community is inevitably more expensive, there must be more, not fewer, resources.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Bill is accompanied by a money resolution which provides new resources for the appeals process, but not for the actual provisions of the Bill. The Government intend that the new duties that the Bill requires will be paid for from existing resources. Therefore, resources will be moved from the treatment of people with other mental illnesses in order to carry out

the Bill's purposes. That is what we are referring to in our amendment, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will support.

Mr. Spicer: I certainly do not support the amendment. Because the Bill is largely related to the concept of care in the community, there will, if anything—if one is to use words such as "inevitable"—be an increase in funds.
The issue is how the money will be spent. I do not agree with MIND's campaign on the Bill, but I support MIND in its succouring role. That is not only cost-effective—if one wants to use such a term—but an extremely good way of involving the community in regular care.
I have been president of my local branch of MIND, and I am particularly impressed with the regularity and consistency, day after day and week after week, with which people concerned with MIND provide assistance in the community. The Government devote large sums of money to the cause, and my only appeal to them is not always to think in terms of great official slices of money, and not to forget organisations such as MIND, which, certainly in my area, is beginning to lose out. It is taking on more and more responsibilities, but is losing the necessary funding. I am talking not about total extra funds, but about the Government perhaps being more involved in earmarking some of the funds they provide for such quasi-voluntary organisations which are so directly related to the community.
The second implication of the policy of moving mental health care out into the community is undoubtedly the issue of supervision which is covered by the Bill. The Labour party seems to be concentrating its criticism of the Bill on the power to convey. The power to convey exists; the question is how it is to be applied.
I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House have come across examples of people who are schizophrenic and potentially dangerous who move in and out of the penal system. The central issue, which the Opposition seem to be missing, is that the Bill seeks to make the health system work better, rather than, as happens at the moment, patients moving in and out of the penal system.
A person may be arrested for some offence, put into the penal system, found to be inappropriate for it and returned to the medical system, which cannot cope in a regular and controlled way. Such a person comes out without proper supervision and ends up back, a few days or weeks later, in the penal system. That is what goes on on the ground. In the penal system, to which there is often no alternative, from the point of view of such people the power to convey often exists in a frightening way.
I promised that I would not speak at length. but the central issue seems to be that people who are a danger to themselves and other people, who, because they are schizophrenic, because they are capable of being cured, because they are thought to be cured at any one moment, and because of the problems of diagnostics within the medical system, are in and out of institutions where there is, rightly, a constant attempt to return them to the outside world, but where they may prove to be a danger. Currently, such people may go back into prison or perhaps the prison hospital, which in turn cannot cope, so they are sent back out again.
In the interests of the community and the patients, this is an excellent Bill. That the medical system should have a greater power of supervision, control and monitoring of patients is well overdue. The Bill will be good for the patient and for the community.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: I give a qualified welcome to the Government's decision to take some action over the increasing crisis of confidence in mental health services. We know that public confidence has been shaken by the number of tragedies and deaths, including one in Doncaster, which resulted in the tragic killing of a 12-year-old girl, Emma Brodie. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of that case, so I shall not go into the details now.
My concern with the Bill is that the Government are reacting to the crisis of public confidence in mental health services rather than to the crisis in those services. It seems to me that the Bill fails to address many of the fundamental problems in mental health care. Much of what is proposed already exists, for example, in guardianship. The only thing that is truly new is the power to take and convey to places of treatment people with mental illness.
The switch from hospital-based care to community-based care has replaced one set of problems with another, and now we are faced with a shortage of psychiatric beds for those who really need them. People can be pushed out of hospital because of pressure on those beds, before adequate services and support in the community are available. That seems to be the key issue.
Patients' health will suffer. They will become revolving-door patients, making no long-term progress in the community. We must recognise that patients will need access to an income, suitable housing and activities to suit their needs if there is to be a sustained improvement in their mental health. Without those, they cannot seriously be expected to prosper in the community.
The Bill does not try to improve the health of the patient. Rather, it is a reaction to the failure of current services and treatments. The power to take and to convey is a reaction to a deterioration in the health of the patient. It is a reaction to the failure of community services. It is for that reason that we need to ensure better organisation and resourcing of those community services.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists has pointed to the danger of the Government skewing resources and paying attention to one group of patients at the expense of the less severely mentally ill. It said that, in most parts of the country, there would need to be a substantial increase in services provided if the after-care provisions of the Bill are to be met.
The Government's claim that the Bill is essentially resource-neutral is difficult to sustain. The claim ignores the problem of staff training and appropriate work loads for community psychiatric nurses, whom both the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Psychiatrists identified.
If the Government are serious about tackling these problems, they should consider reviewing the Mental Health Act 1983 as a starting point. The Act should be revised to help it to address the community emphasis that is now placed on care and treatment following the

introduction of community care. Instead, the Government have brought before the House a measure that could undermine the professional relationships between carers and patients, and which fails to address the real problem in mental health care: service provision and resources.
I hope that the Government will think hard about more long-term solutions, particularly when the Bill is in Standing Committee, and act to secure service improvements that will benefit those with mental health problems and the public at large. The issue is too important to be left to the quick fix that we all too often see from the Government.

Mr. David Atkinson: I believe that mental illness represents one of the greatest challenges facing our health and social services today. I fear that it will become even more so in future, as a result of the accelerating pace of change in our daily lives and, increasingly, the breakdown in traditional family life, with more people becoming patients in need of help and treatment than ever before.
I echo the tribute that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary paid just now to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for having done more for the mentally ill in this country in the past five years than has been done in the previous 50—or, indeed, 500—years. I believe that that will be acknowledged by all those involved in mental health today.
The Bill that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is introducing tonight was announced before—although it had anticipated—the outcome of the Ritchie inquiry. That it is necessary has been demonstrated far too often in recent years by highly publicised homicides and violent incidents, for which severely mentally ill people, such as Christopher Clunis, were responsible. Many of those homicides and incidents were committed by those being cared for in the community, having recently been discharged. As the Ritchie inquiry found, such care can be patchy, neglectful and inappropriate. The Government must address, and they are addressing, that situation today.
I welcome the new power of supervised discharge that my hon. Friend is proposing today, as it represents that element of my right hon. Friend's 10-point plan for developing successful and safe community care which requires legislation. I do so also on behalf of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, as one of its two honorary parliamentary consultants, with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). It provides such excellent help and support for sufferers and their families, and for carers, to whom I pay tribute—as, I am sure, does the whole House. The fellowship will wish to thank my hon. Friend for being so helpful after we met him last December in ensuring that Forresters, its respite hotel in Hylton near Southampton, which was threatened with closure because of lack of funding, will remain open.
Before I express my two reservations about the Bill, I shall make a general comment about the background and experience against which it has been prepared. As my hon. Friend reminded us this afternoon, the community care approach aims to eliminate for all time the old remote and inhumane asylums. It was encouraging to see that the 1993 survey of attitudes towards the mentally ill supported that view by some 77 per cent.
There are today a growing number of fine examples of hostels and residential homes for those with mental health problems, and they often represent the first and only haven for the discharged. One such hostel is Charles house, in my constituency, which was opened some three years ago by Esther Rantzen for the Bournemouth National Schizophrenia Fellowship, in a joint venture with Dorset social services, Dorset Healthcare NHS trust and the Western Challenge housing association. The family atmosphere that its dedicated staff provide, with the support of a very caring GP, Dr. Chris Williams, in which all the residents are encouraged to participate, represents a happy contrast to their experience in hospital, where there appeared to be no time to listen to their needs and problems, and where medication was the means to keep them quiet.
Charles house is proof that community care can and does work for the mentally ill. Only the establishment of a comprehensive network of such long-stay, short and medium-stay hostels, sheltered homes or homes based in each district throughout the country for the mentally ill to be treated and cared for, ideally close to friends and family, will ensure the success of the care approach, provided that such care is backed up by an adequate number of hospital beds.
Although I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will approve hospital closures only when she is assured that adequate community care is already in place, what continues to concern me, and also the fellowship, is the apparent lack of co-ordination and monitoring of the discharges from hospital beds to care beds.
According to the House of Commons Library research paper on the Bill, between 1981 and 1991 the number of beds for mentally ill people in English hospitals fell from 85,000 to 50,000. In the same period, the number of day hospital places increased from 15,300 to 22,500. How can we be sure, however, that the balance of the 27,800 discharged patients are being properly accommodated in non-hospital, residential beds in the community? How can we be sure that they will not fall—or have not already fallen—through the net of care, although it is the statutory responsibility of the health and social services departments to provide for them?
That brings me to the principal concern of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship in regard to the Bill. I attempted to reflect that concern in early-day motion 1214, which was signed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. The fellowship fears that, because the Bill provides for no new funds apart from those for an increased number of mental health review tribunals, it will not succeed in its purpose, but will divert existing resources to the supervision of "revolving-door" patients at the expense of others who are just as severely ill or who are voluntary patients.
My hon. Friend the Minister will probably say that what is proposed is merely a statutory extension of what should be existing best practice—for example, the existing guardianship arrangements, which are little used—and that his Department is issuing guidelines and advice on what good practice should be.
The fellowship points out, however, that the legislation requires involvement with no fewer than eight different professionals and non-professionals at six-monthly intervals as after-care under supervision continues—not to mention any extra consideration if changes are proposed,

or discussions with housing agencies, day centres and the like. All that will require more staff time, which must be properly resourced.
Moreover, although the Bill provides for the cost of the additional number of tribunals, it does not appear to provide for the cost of the additional time required for psychiatrists and social workers to prepare reports for the additional tribunal hearings. The Ritchie report recommended new funding for specialist psychiatric teams to supervise discharged patients needing intensive after-care.
Without such extra resources, the Bill will undoubtedly result in a reduction in staff time and other resources for patients who are not subject to after-care under supervision, but who are still severely ill. That is bound to make those patients a risk to others—as well as to themselves, through self-neglect or attempted suicide—and will only add to the number of those needing care under supervision. In other words, without extra resources, the Bill could prove counter-productive and self-defeating, rather than fulfilling its intention of making the community safe for patients and making patients safe in the community.
I have a second reservation, which has already been voiced by a number of speakers. I believe that the Bill is no substitute for a fundamental review of the 1983 Act. I was a member of the Standing Committee that scrutinised that legislation; it was one of those rare Bills that are subjected to the Special Standing Committee procedure, which allowed us to invite representations and to question experts. In my view, the eventual Bill was all the better for that, and I am sorry that most legislation is not subject to the same process: I think that, if it were, it would be better legislation.
The 1983 Bill was enacted at a time when patients were treated in long-stay residential settings, and is no longer relevant to today's approach to care. We cannot ignore the case of Stephen Laudat, who stabbed a man to death having previously refused to take his medication, and had declined psychiatric follow-up treatment; nor can we ignore the Blom-Cooper inquiry into the case of Andrew Robinson, which called for powers to allow compulsory treatment for patients who decide not to comply with their recommended care programme.
I hope that, when the Minister winds up the debate, although he has already told us that he has an open mind about a review of the 1983 Act, he will tell us whether he accepts the recommendation of the British Medical Association that appropriate safeguards should be in place, and that compulsory treatment should he imposed only when patients pose a serious danger to themselves and others. I hope that he will give some thought to what the safeguards should be.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I remind the House and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) that it is a mistake to make too powerful and perceptive a speech in the hearing of a member of the Committee of Selection. As the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer)—who also made an interesting speech—was not present to hear the argument of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and the answer to his question about resources, I propose to ensure that both of them are selected to be members of


the Standing Committee. Indeed, I might appoint myself to the Committee so that I can watch the fun as the argument between them develops. I shall include the Minister as well, just so that he does not feel left out.
Like the Minister, I hope that the Bill can be discussed on a non-party political basis, as it was in the House of Lords. I do not think it necessary to be politically partisan. I was encouraged by the sensible and rational speech that we heard from the official Opposition spokesman—

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Not surprisingly.

Mr. Kirkwood: No, it is not surprising, but I have heard one or two Opposition Front-Bench speeches in my time.
I am sure that the Bill, and the work of the Standing Committee, will be the better for that non-partisan approach, although I feel that it should really have gone straight into a Special Standing Committee. I endorse what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East said about the Special Standing Committee procedure that was used in the case of what became the 1983 Act. I do not know why the Government have set their face against that procedure; perhaps the House of Lords was considered a substitute for a Special Standing Committee, but I do not think that it was. Legislation such as this would be much better framed if we had direct access to the views of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and other pressure groups, although some views have been expressed adequately to hon. Members in writing.
I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East has done for many years. Schizophrenia is a terrible illness. We have all read case histories that tell of the destruction of families who have tried to deal with the condition. I accept that it is difficult for the Government to respond, and I therefore think it important for us to do what we can on a cross-party basis to get the legislation right.
On a slightly carping note, I want to raise a procedural matter. As a Scots Member and, in a previous incarnation, a humble provincial solicitor—none of the big silk hankie brigade for me—I feel that we must rid ourselves of a certain habit. I address my complaint to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)who is seated diligently in his place. We must stop mixing Scottish and English legislation: it is fiendishly difficult for practitioners who are trying to disentangle Acts of Parliament to find Scottish legislation in unified United Kingdom Bills, because the legal systems are so different. The powers of the sheriff and the rules of guardianship are substantially different.
I understand that there are problems with finding enough compos mentis Scottish Tory Back Benchers for Standing Committees. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland disagrees, but I know that there are difficulties. When the Government decided to move on this matter, they should have introduced two separate pieces of legislation. I hope that the Bill will be the first step towards a proper review in the new atmosphere of the whole framework of legislation in this field. I say that in passing because the point was made adequately earlier in the debate and I tried to make it in an intervention. The Minister said that he has an open mind. Ministers always

have open minds. I am grateful for small mercies and take that response at face value because I know that he is genuinely concerned. I hope that his open mind will focus on getting the legislative time that he needs for the fundamental review for which the whole House appreciates the need.
These are difficult matters. Clunis and Silcock and the other events that have been mentioned, all of which were individual tragedies, give a heightened, almost hysterical, background against which we have to try to deal with this intractable problem. By far the biggest problem concerns mentally ill patients who damage themselves, commit suicide or leave themselves in terrible positions which destroy their families. When contemplating legislation, we must put in the balance not just the cases that get the headlines; we must also address the desperately distressing cases of neglect and worse among the mentally ill.
Resources are an important part of the argument. If there were adequate facilities for after-care, housing, employment, training and recreation, the problem would not be nearly as bad, particularly in inner cities. I do not have any special expertise in that respect because mine is a rural constituency, but the problem is bad enough there. I know that my colleagues, who know about these things and have studied them in more detail than I have been able to do, are concerned about the lack of facilities in areas such as central London. That must be dealt with.
Some of the representations that all hon. Members have had from the British Medical Association, the Association of County Councils and some other bodies such as the National Association for Mental Health and the Scottish Association for Mental Health cannot but cause concern about alleged omissions and anomalies and the Government's lack of a proper and systematic approach to this problem. When the Bill is in Committee, we will have to address some of those problems as best we can.
I think that the Scottish Affairs Select Committee's report is due almost any day now. It is currently preparing a report on the problems associated with the closure of psychiatric institutions in Scotland. I hope that the report will not be ignored by the Standing Committee and that any conclusions reached by that important Select Committee will inform the work of the Standing Committee, certainly in relation to the Scottish sections of the Bill. I would not like to think that it was too late to weigh the Select Committee's conclusions in the balance of arguments in the Standing Committee.
More than anything else, resources must be taken into account. I hope that the Committee will have an opportunity for sensible discussions about that. There is obviously a good deal of difference between the Government and the Opposition parties about the increase in resources that has occurred, how the money has been spent and whether it has been put to proper use. It would be in the public interest for the Committee to try to get to the bottom of the statistics and to establish how they work out in practice.
If I heard him correctly, the Minister estimated that there are about 20 cases to which supervision orders might apply in each health authority area. That figure is new to me. I found it difficult to discover how many people the Bill would affect. I assume that the figure relates to England and Wales. It is very small. Is it a firm figure? I


know that there is uncertainty about statistics and I shall happily give way to the Minister if he would like to clarify the matter.

Mr. Bowls: The figure that I gave was the estimate of an average for each district health authority. A figure of about 3,000 nationally has often been quoted and when that is divided by the number of health authorities the result is about 20. The figure would obviously depend on each health authority, the practice of individual clinicians, decisions by psychiatrists and facilities that are already in the community. My figures are no firmer than that, but I thought that they were helpful in terms of the scale of the operation.

Mr. Kirkwood: I appreciate that helpful intervention. If the Minister had not made the position clear, I could have set off in a spurious direction. The figure could mask substantial discrepancies between inner-city areas and other parts of the country, but I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification.
The Committee will also have to look at co-ordination. I am not convinced that the Bill does anything like enough to get appropriate co-ordination between the various agencies. I am on the parliamentary panel of the Royal College of Nursing and try to work with it, obviously on an honorary basis. It is worried about the extra resources that might be needed to get properly trained mental health nurses, give them further training and deal with the increased work load if the Bill reaches the statute book.
There are a number of detailed questions I should like to ask, but it would not serve the purpose of the House to go through them at length. I am still a bit sceptical and have not yet formulated a final view, but as the Committee's deliberations proceed I shall be interested to see whether a purely legal approach of this kind is the right way forward. Some people say that such an approach is not right and that we should go for a better resourced, administrative solution. The Committee may want to turn to that. There is a real worry that the new supervised discharge system that we are considering will not sit all that comfortably with community care—certainly not in Scotland. The term "community care order" is a misnomer and the Committee should spend some time considering whether it is the right name. Community care orders are driven by psychiatrists; care in the community should be driven by social workers. There could be a great deal of confusion if we do not get these matters right at the beginning.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) who asked about the powers that are to be made available to sheriffs. There is real concern north of the border that the powers given to sheriffs are indeterminate and too vague. I am still unclear about the extent to which the Bill will affect children and young people. I do not think that it can north of the border because they will be subject to the panel procedure, although it will affect young people in England and Wales, but I am not sure about that.
Does the Bill apply to people with learning difficulties? Questions such as that cause me concern but they may be clear to the Minister. There is enough confusion in people's minds for it to be important to use the Committee to clarify some of these matters. The Minister was kind enough to refer to my noble Friend the fifth Earl Russell who is no less a person than the author of a book entitled

"The Crises in Parliaments, English History from 1509 to 1660". I am unlikely, therefore, to controvert anything that my noble Friend says.
This is a good Bill, but it is not perfect. I am persuaded by the argument in the reasoned amendment but, if we support it, it will not be because we are totally and implacably opposed to the principle of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said, but because we think that much work will have to be done in Standing Committee to get the Bill right before it goes on to the statute book.

Mr. David Nicholson: I welcome the Bill for what it contains and points to, but in particular I welcome the opportunity that it gives us—here I echo the thoughts of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—to reconsider, analyse, discuss and debate the care in the community system as it affects people with severe mental difficulty. Naturally, I regret that the Opposition have moved an amendment and will be dividing on Second Reading, but I welcome much of the speech by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), as I welcome that of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, who spoke for the Liberal party.
I was especially glad that the hon. Gentleman echoed a point that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship has made: although the few cases where severe mentally ill people, often suffering from schizophrenia, have attacked and occasionally killed members of the public—which have been accompanied by sensational publicity—may have triggered the legislation and concern, alas, less attention has been paid to the mortality rate of people with schizophrenia, which is estimated at twice that of the general population, mainly because of suicide. Through our families, friends and constituencies, we probably all know individuals whose lives, even in recent years, have had a tragic end in those circumstances.
In addition to the direct interest of families and neighbours of people who suffer in that particular way, there is a much wider interest in us getting the system right. Even now I hear, in letters or in conversation—although I am glad to say that it is less frequently stated—"This is all a disaster and completely wrong. Wouldn't it be better to have these people incarcerated in those Victorian buildings out in the countryside?" That attitude is wrong, but Parliament and all the people involved in operating the care in the community system must constantly work to assure the general population that the new system, which is very recent—it came into practice only two or three years ago—is the right way to deal with these matters and does provide proper protection for the safety and amenity of the general population, as well as being in the best interests of patients.
My interest in this subject has increased from, I must confess, near zero when I was first elected, largely through discussions with interested constituents, whether they be doctors, nurses, practitioners, the families of patients, or the small group that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship has established in my constituency and, I hope, in many other constituencies. Regular meetings are held with practitioners, families of sufferers or sufferers themselves. I have been grateful to have been invited to some of those discussions to talk in


a calm and measured way about the concerns that those people have. I have been grateful for the insights that that has given me.
If we intend to use—and I think that we will—the Standing Committee to probe and to explore this matter, of course we will depend on those outside organisations to help us with briefing and raising questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) may recall that we were reminded of that some weeks ago. Parliament, especially when it considers a Bill in detail, cannot operate in an ivory tower, separate from what happens outside. We are anxious, through certain other matters that are being considered by people in high office, properly to regulate the way in which outside interests—they may be economic and commercial, but often they may be caring institutions and organisations—influence and inform our procedures here and to make progress in that respect.
I have been personally involved in some cases in my constituency. In one case, I took part in having someone, alas, sectioned. In others, I have tried to ensure that schizophrenia sufferers were properly looked after when their families were convinced that they were not taking their proper medicine. Like the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), I am a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the parliamentary ombudsman—who also acts as the health service commissioner. The Select Committee has had cases before it—I mentioned one in a debate on the parliamentary ombudsman just before Christmas—where it has been shown that the system has not worked. It is vital that we take what measures we can to minimise those occasions where this cumbersome system has not worked, involving practitioners from various specialties.
I am interested in the passage in the Opposition's amendment about Government Departments coordinating. Of course it is vital that Government Departments, local authorities and, if necessary, the police and various other bodies should properly co-ordinate. When something goes wrong, it is vital that individuals in a community get together to put it right as quickly as possible. I hope that, as the Bill proceeds, we will consider how that works.
My wife is president of Taunton Mencap; that is a slightly related matter. I am glad that the Prime Minister's wife and the Prime Minister himself take a great interest in that charity. I am particularly pleased to say that both my hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State for Health and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who will be responsible for the Scottish aspects of the Bill, are excellent Ministers. I knew them both long before they entered the House—indeed, I have known them for more than 30 years, so I could not believe that this matter would be in better hands.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Do not say that, they will put it in their election address.

Mr. Nicholson: I do not know what election address the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) is talking about.
Before I discuss some of the concerns that have been raised, I shall refer to some of the successes that the local services, including the Avalon, Somerset national health

service trust, have had. This might be nearer to the election address to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. It is well known and, I think, my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that Somerset was one of the relatively few regions where co-ordination and co-operation between the health authority and county council social services were of such excellence that Somerset was ready to go ahead with care in the community at the earlier date envisaged by the Government. After care in the community was finally set up, it progressed extremely well in Somerset. I salute all the people who have been responsible for that in the local community.
I shall give the House some figures to show how progress has been made in past 10 years. In 1985, the number of Somerset hospital beds for mental health was 746 in six locations and the number of day places was 97 in four locations. Ten years later, the figures had changed to 382 beds in 21 locations and 413 day places in 21 locations, with community mental health teams working with social services, primary health care teams and the voluntary and private sectors to ensure that people had a range of options for dealing with their mental health problems, bringing them into the community, which is the purpose of the exercise. In the past year, occupancy levels for hospital beds averaged 81 per cent., ensuring that it was always possible to find a bed in Somerset if one was needed. One may not have been available at the nearest unit, but a bed has always been available.
Another important factor that reflects the massive changes that have taken place is the closure of large Victorian institutions. Tone Vale, in the middle of my constituency, closed in March, and a housing estate and other facilities will be developed on the site. I have visited the new units at Rydon house and Pyrland house for mental health patients and other people needing care, and I was most impressed by the work that went on there.
Over the past three years the proportion of staff employed in direct patient care has increased by 3 per cent. as a consequence of the changes in service delivery—mainly because of a reduction in estate staff and others needed to maintain large obsolete buildings, and an increase in nursing and medical staff. However, I am told that there is still a problem with the number of consultant psychiatrists and junior medical staff available to cover a community-based service.
Although the closure of large hospitals has reduced the number of beds, the value of the estate employed in the care of mentally ill people has increased considerably. In 1993 that estate was valued at £14.8 million; in March 1995 it was valued at £28 million. The buildings are now purpose-designed, with low maintenance costs, and are liked and valued by users of the service. That shows the practical way in which changes have taken place in Somerset.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East referred to some of the concerns raised by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, and I simply echo some of those. A small minority of people, perhaps about 3,000 of them, are never offered appropriate care or reject it. That can happen because the services do not exist, or are not co-ordinated, or because they concentrate on those who are easier to work with. But it can also happen because the patient is suspicious of everyone, has lost all motivation and stays in bed all the time, or dislikes the services offered or those offering them—those are


common features of schizophrenia. Or the patient may be too ill or too disorganised to keep appointments or to take prescribed medication. The NSF says that that is the group of patients whom the Bill aims to help.
The NSF also says, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East reiterated, that the Bill requires involvement with no fewer than eight professionals and non-professionals at six-monthly intervals—more often if some change is proposed—through requirements either to give information or to consult patients. Staff time costs money, so there will be costs there.
Indeed, I have just received a letter from the director of social services for Somerset county council saying that revenue support grant needs to be increased to allow for the growing pressures and for capping to be relaxed. We debated capping last week, and Somerset's experience is somewhat happier than that of some other counties. Nevertheless, the director says that capping needs to be eased in line with the new demands, because for more and more people the promise of community care will not be satisfied unless that happens.
Finally, I shall develop the argument about resources in a wider sense. I heard the Minister say that, as a Minister, he did not want to widen the issues, but when we talk about care in the community wider issues inevitably crop up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I do not wish to anticipate what the hon. Gentleman intends to say, but I hope that we shall not hear about revenue support grant, capping, area cost adjustment or any of those aspects.

Mr. Nicholson: I am happy to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have finished talking about those matters.
I hope that the Minister will continue his work on the resource aspects that arise when elderly people need geriatric care in private nursing homes. That is a big issue facing us now, and although the causes are not the same, the problems that those people have are not very different from the problems of the people with whom the Bill attempts to deal.
Secondly, referring also to people with mental difficulties, I wish to raise the problem of the people whom we see on the streets of our large cities, especially London, begging and sleeping rough. Many initiatives have been taken by the various Departments responsible for helping them. I know that they are generally described as "the homeless", but we all know that homelessness is not their main problem. Some suffer from drug abuse, alcohol abuse or other forms of abuse.
I recall what was said about the state of mental health services in London and the south-east. Many of those people have mental difficulties, and I should like to impress on the Minister the need for all responsible Departments to co-ordinate action effectively so that those people, whom we now see every day and every night, are dealt with and helped. A sight that is becoming offensive to many of us could then be removed.
With those provisos, I welcome the Bill.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Undoubtedly new legislation is needed, but this is not the Bill with which many Opposition Members would have chosen to start. However, it could be substantially improved in

Committee, and I hope that when we reach that stage the Minister will be as open minded as his colleagues were in the House of Lords.
The Bill is not about improving the delivery of community care services for the great majority of mental health service users. As at present drafted it is essentially about the control and containment of the severely mentally ill. I do not underestimate the importance of that need, and I attach particular importance to what was said by the hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) when they paid tribute to the role of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, many of whose members strongly support the Bill and say that it is much needed.
The Bill is about the control and containment of a small proportion of the mentally ill who have been "sectioned"—that is, detained under sections 3 or 17 of the Mental Health Act 1983 or the equivalent provisions for Scotland. The Government introduced it in response to some distressing incidents of violence. However, as several hon. Members have said, the number of people injured or killed by the mentally ill is tiny compared with the number of deaths caused, say, by road accidents, or even by drunken drivers alone. The person most likely to be injured—sadly, all too often fatally—is the mentally ill person himself.
The best that can be said of the Bill is that it could be significantly and usefully amended to stimulate the development of services appropriate to the needs both of those who have been formally detained and of others.
The representations that have been submitted to the all-party mental health group, of which I am proud to be chairman, all emphasise the importance of involving the users of mental health services in their care plans. There is little of that in the Bill as originally drafted, although, as the Minister said, amendments made in the House of Lords have improved the emphasis on informing patients and, if they consent, their closest relative—and, to a more limited extent, their informal carers, to whom in practice so much of their care devolves.
However, much more could be done to amend the Bill so that users could be more fully involved in their care plan programme. The benefits are genuine. Obviously, a user's consent makes the life of the mental health worker or social worker easier. But in a more profound way, involving the user in his or her care plan improves the effectiveness and appropriateness of treatment. It can build a therapeutic relationship and gives the user more control and a better incentive to recover.
Involvement is a key concept in a number of recent reports, including Department of Health reports such as "Advocacy—a code of practice", "Black mental health dialogue—a dialogue for change", and especially "Guidelines for a local charter for users of mental health services", which was produced by the mental health task force user group of the national health service executive.
The Mental Health Acts of 1983 and 1984 placed on Ministers a duty to draw up, after consultation, a code -of practice for mental health workers; to lay it before Parliament and to update it regularly. In England, the code of practice has been recently updated; the Scottish code, first published in 1989, still awaits its first revision. Both codes will need to be revised in the light of the Bill. I hope that the Minister, in replying to the debate, will be


able to tell the House that consultations will start soon and will involve user groups, as well as those who deliver the service.
There is a point that is not dealt with in the Bill and I hope that the Minister will carefully consider it. In parallel with the code of practice, there should be a new duty laid on Ministers in Scotland and in England and Wales to provide a charter for mental health users. When I say "a duty on Ministers to provide a charter", I am well aware that the guidelines are for a local charter for users of mental health services.
It is interesting that in the model charter that is provided, only two lines make provision for local input—the names of people to whom resource can be had. There are, nevertheless, local factors which, if they could be taken into account effectively in so many different situations, would clearly be helpful.
In the report, a user commented:
Much work is needed on general care of the patient. Even basic care like bath, shampoo, shave, dental care, clean clothing is being neglected.
I doubt whether that is the case in Taunton, but certainly it is in Brixton.
Another user commented:
Black patients, and other patients from minority groups, feel isolated with their illness, doubly, because their opinions and cultural needs are overlooked. For example, native food and drinks are not seen as important. Roots food, tonic remedies, herbal treatment and therapeutic massage are sources of alternative care that must be considered.
The perpetual cry from every user organisation that is ever consulted is echoed by this comment:
Emergency care is needed out of hours to talk and defuse situations, not just medication. It is wrong that the police should be involved".
If there were a duty on Ministers to provide a charter for mental health users, it would be perfectly possible to provide for local additions to it dealing with the sort of problems that I have outlined and being specific about the channels of access to those resources.
An enlightened code of practice would, of course, interact with the charter and could help to change the climate of mental care and—I hope that this is still regarded as important—safeguard the civil rights of the mentally ill.
The Bill should require that each time a patient is informed of a supervision order or of changes to a supervision order, he should be given a copy of the charter and have its provisions explained orally. Likewise, the patient's closest relative and his or her informal carer should be fully informed. Those are the people who are crucial to the patient's well-being and their involvement is vital.
Some would query whether the persons sectioned are the right client group to involve in a charter for mental health users. I would argue that it is necessary to start with them. Patients who have been sectioned are not necessarily the most violent or severely or chronically ill, or even the most disturbed. They are simply those seen by doctors or social workers as liable to endanger others or themselves.
In its operation, sectioning is a rather arbitrary act. Some people have been sectioned for one brief, traumatic breakdown and live the rest of their lives without any sign

of mental instability. Some may be sectioned during one episode of illness and not the next. For others, the illness is a long-term problem with, perhaps, repeated admissions to hospital. They may sometimes be sectioned and sometimes not. The consultant's attitude, rather than the severity of the illness, may be the determining factor.
It is right to involve the users precisely because they are the people who in hospital are deprived of their liberty and to whom the Bill relates. They, above all, merit the sort of respect, involvement and empowerment that the charter for mental health users offers.
Users, above all, need appropriate treatment. The Bill says a good deal about appropriate things but little about appropriate treatment. The charter is not an easy option and it would be a way of giving practical effect to appropriateness of treatment which, at present, is not covered in the system.
In giving people rights, we also place on them responsibilities. The task of keeping well is very difficult for many people whose lives are shot through with mental illness. It is a serious matter. I hope that the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill can be so amended as to help formerly detained patients to keep well and maintain their dignity and self-respect.

Mr. John Marshall: I apologise to the House for not being able to attend the beginning of the debate. Some hon. Members may know that the Prime Minister was addressing a meeting of the Conservative Friends of Israel. As an officer of the CFI, I thought it only right and proper to be there.
I should like to declare an interest. I am a member of the advisory council of JAMI, the Jewish Association for the Mentally Ill. The advice comes from it to me, rather than from me to it. I pay tribute to the work that that wonderful charity does and emphasise the difficulty that it faces, from time to time, because some local authorities take advantage of its services but refuse to pay anything in the way of a contribution towards the cost of providing those services.
Like my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), I should like to pay tribute to the work of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. It was one of the first groups that I saw after I was elected in 1987. The stories that I was told by individual parents underlined the difficulties that were being created by the care in the community policy.
I went up to one member and asked, "What is your problem? Who is affected? Is it your daughter or your son?" She said that her daughter was schizophrenic. I asked where she was and she told me that her daughter was sleeping somewhere on a park bench in London and that she did not know where she was. That was typical of the problems that I heard about. It was not a unique situation.
One of the tragedies of mental health in London is that many of those who sleep rough in London are people who were sent out of mental hospitals to be treated in the community. They have ended up with a quality of life that is substantially poorer than that which they once enjoyed. There was another case I saw that evening of a lady who was concerned about the treatment that her son was


receiving from psychiatrists. Unfortunately, despite many letters, the psychiatrist did not listen and, last year, the boy committed suicide.
One of the problems, and one with which the Bill seeks to deal, is that many of those who are released into the community refuse to co-operate with the treatment that is suggested for them. Their medication is unpleasant and it is very difficult to tell patients that they are sufficiently well to go into the community but sufficiently ill to need to carry on with their treatment. All too often, the result is that they say, "Yes, we are well enough to go into the community, therefore we are well enough not to have this rather unpleasant treatment." The result of that is that they become violent, lose their friends and end up in a different form of institutional care. It is quite wrong that people should be released into the community from an institution that is caring for them and then end up in prison as a result of committing some crime.
The Bill is obviously going to help deal with that through the concept of supervised discharge. However, I believe that that must be viewed as part of a package because for too long, the mentally ill have been the Cinderella of the health service.
In all these great issues, the pendulum swings too far one way and then too far the other way. In the 1940s and 1950s, it was far too easy to have someone admitted to a mental hospital. The Victorian asylums were too large and too impersonal, but unfortunately society, in a crisis of conscience, went from one extreme to the other. In the revulsion against our history in this matter, we have gone on to make different mistakes. The fact that too many people were admitted to mental hospitals led to a failure to recognise that many who would be released into the community might be better off in an asylum which, traditionally, is a place of care and rest. The fact that the Victorian institutions were too large and too impersonal led to a failure to recognise that smaller hospitals might be necessary.
In 1961, Enoch Powell decided to close all the large mental institutions by 2000. There is no doubt that the Treasury was seduced by the capital receipts that it anticipated and that it believed that care in the community might become a cheap option. The Treasury did not realise, however, that care in the community, if it is to be done properly, is more expensive than hospitalisation because it requires a lot of investment in training and people. Care in the community is labour intensive and cash intensive; that was not recognised by the Treasury or by others in the beginning.
Whatever the situation may be in sunny Taunton, there is no doubt that in London and the south-east, we suffer from a lack of beds for the mentally ill. All the evidence is that there is an inadequate number of beds for the mentally ill in London and the south-east. It is also the case that in London and the south-east, we do not have sufficient psychiatric nurses to deal with the number of schizophrenics we have. A third of those needing psychiatric services in London are homeless. That underlines the problems, which the Department and my hon. Friend the Minister recognise.
Those who say that the supervised discharge offends against individual civil liberties do not hit the right point. First, it is a paradox to say to someone, "You are sufficiently ill to need treatment, but you are sufficiently sane to recognise the fact that you need treatment and to

say that you will undergo that treatment." A small number of people do not recognise that fact and then cause problems for themselves and for others.
Secondly, many of the relatives of those who will be affected by the Bill are praying for it to become law because of the traumas that they suffer when they see their sons and daughters not responding to treatment, when they know that their children are sleeping rough in London and not having the treatment that they need. I suggest that anyone who talks about civil liberties should talk to the relatives of those who will benefit from the Bill; they will get a very rough answer. The relatives worry the whole time whether their sons or daughters will commit suicide, they worry about whether they will become violent towards an innocent individual and they worry about their quality of life. For some who are released into the community, the quality of life is little more than a scandal.
The other civil liberty to be considered is the civil liberty of an innocent individual who may be harmed if we do not have the power of supervised discharge. There is no doubt that a number of murders have taken place—a relatively small number perhaps, but one unnecessary murder is the denial of someone's civil liberties and there is no greater liberty than the freedom to live. We are dealing, however, not only with the civil liberties of those who are killed by people who are not taking treatment.
Let us face the fact that there are many schizophrenics who have been released into the community and who then commit suicide. The official figures show that there were 266 suicides in three years, but that severely understates the number. There is a reluctance on the part of coroners to say that someone took his own life because some people have a religious revulsion at the thought of suicide. Sometimes there may be insurance policies which will not be honoured in the case of suicide and it is not unknown for the coroner to take that fact into account.
There are many people whose civil liberties will be affected if we do not pass the Bill; we must bear that in mind. I very much hope that the Bill will pass speedily through its Committee stage. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who is a member of the Committee of Selection, is present this evening. I volunteer to be a member of the Standing Committee; we have had three volunteers already this evening, which means that we may have a relatively short Committee stage. I hope so because the Bill is important and will benefit part of our society which has been neglected for too long.

Ms Ann Coffey: The Bill provides for the after-care supervision of patients who have been subject to treatment or hospital orders. As some of my hon. Friends have already pointed out, there are concerns about how the after-care supervision will be implemented and by whom, and there are issues about the role of the supervisor that will be considered carefully in Committee.
The supervision orders will apply to a minority of patients whose illness is chronic—patients whose behaviour may place them at risk or may place other people at risk. It is right and proper that we should be concerned about those patients. The intention seems to be twofold. First, it is to secure for a patient after-care services, which will be provided under section 117 of the


Mental Health Act 1983. Secondly, supervisors will have to ensure that patients attend for treatment, occupational therapy, education, training or whatever—a wider policing role.
As the Bill explains, there should be no additional cost for health authorities and local authorities. However, after-care services self-evidently require resourcing, so it is hardly surprising that the Bill is viewed as legislation that emphasises the social policing role of social workers and health workers. They are the people at whom the finger can be pointed when something goes wrong, enabling the Minister to wash his hands of any responsibility to provide resources for them to do their jobs. As the Minister is aware, even social policemen need resourcing.
Before the Minister asks where the resources will come from, I point out that when the trusts were set up in Stockport, the taxpayer had to pay for a £1 million increase in the salary bill. If I am asked where extra resources for mental health care should come from, I can say that they could easily come from the administrative costs resulting from setting up the trusts. One million pounds would have gone a long way towards helping mentally ill people in Stockport; unfortunately, they did not get that money.
Mental health is the Cinderella of the health service for a number of reasons. There is, unfortunately, a great deal of fear among some of the population who regard all mentally ill people as exceedingly dangerous. That is far from the truth. Many mentally ill people face sad and painful lives with great courage—more courage than the rest of us may have. Mental illness can also he a source of shame and embarrassment for those who suffer from it because their difficulty in coping may be seen as a mark of failure.
I do not know the exact figures, but I know that a high proportion of the population will suffer an acute period of depression or a disabling anxiety episode in their lives. Most will recover hut, sadly, some will not. Stress at work and at home, when communities have become less supportive, has increased the likelihood of breakdown in the general population. For some, schizophrenia and recurring psychoses are totally disabling. The high proportion of such people among the homeless is a sign of their ultimate fate and shows what community care has brought for them.
There is not a magic division between mental health and mental illness. Death, redundancy, mental breakdown and other crises can bring even the strongest of us to the brink of disintegration. Perhaps the fact that vast investment has gone into bringing about technological changes, while we are unable still to heal a traumatised child or return to health a schizophrenic person reflects our priorities as a society. In the absence of such help, it is crucial that resources are available in the community and hospitals to offer care and support for those who may never get better and also for those who, with help, can overcome their difficulties.
Resources such as day provision, acute beds, long-term beds, community nurses, social workers, funding for self-help and support groups, carers and supported employment are all necessary for an infrastructure of community care. In reality, that infrastructure is not there. Since the closure of long-stay hospitals and the transfer

of beds to local district hospitals, often hospitals cannot fulfil conflicting needs for beds. Over the past five years, there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of patients admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. Unfortunately, the shortage of resources means that beds have not been available for voluntary patients or hard-pressed relatives who require respite care.
Indeed, I recently had to take up an issue concerning that very problem on behalf of one of my constituents. My constituent was informed by the hospital that as 42 per cent. of the beds at that time were occupied by people under compulsory admission, there was not—unfortunately—a bed for someone who was exhausted by having to cope with a husband who had a long-term mental illness.
Against that background, my concern is that, with no new resources being made available for wider community care, staff time will be taken up with implementing supervision orders. That will mean fewer community nurses available to support people such as my constituents. Without such valuable help, more families will be stressed, there will be further diminution of community care and it will be more likely that the health of people will deteriorate to the point at which they will have to be admitted to hospital. If services were available earlier, some of that illness could be prevented.
Where are the after-care resources to come from? We are talking about suitable housing, because we cannot just dump somebody in the community. Often much work has to be done with neighbours, who are sometimes very hostile to mentally ill patients. All that requires staff time. Day centres require money, but it is very important for patients to be able to attend them to talk, receive support and get help. Community nurses are invaluable—we need more of them. Where are they? Support for employment is also vital.
All those provisions are necessary in identifying and providing after-care services for patients on supervision orders. After all, good-quality after-care services are those that the patient needs, and they cannot be provided by trying to fit the patient into the available after-care services. Such a mismatch leads to coercion in the supervision order, when patients know that they are going somewhere that is not able to meet their needs, while being told that there is not an alternative.
If resources are to be pooled to meet supervision orders—no new resources are being made available by the Government—what will happen to the other mentally ill people who need help? It is all very well talking about targeting resources—if they can be prioritised—but mental illness covers two groups of patients with different needs. People with long-term psychiatric problems will need on-going help, but the illnesses of patients with acute problems can be prevented from getting worse, with help when they need it. Both those groups need prioritising. I am concerned about the latter group, because those people will not receive the necessary services, which will inevitably lead to the development of longer-term illnesses.
The Minister is right to be concerned with those who trouble society—we are all concerned about that—but he should also be concerned with those members of our society who are troubled. He should seek ways in which to help and support them. He should take this opportunity to tackle the problems of mental illness on behalf of all those who suffer from it. At the end of the day, it is they who bear the burden.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I shall not need to detain the House for very long because a number of points that I would have covered in more detail have been most adequately and effectively dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), whose speech was a model contribution towards the sensible passage of the Bill. He was speaking from obvious experience of the families of severely mentally ill people, and the Bill specifically addresses the concerns of such families and patients.
I have always taken the view that the decision to close rapidly all the large mental hospitals was in some ways wrong. We should have moved rather more slowly. Although I accept that at the end of the day care in the community is more beneficial than those old asylums, nevertheless such institutions provided a level of care for very sick people which was of real value to them. We all carry a heavy responsibility for cases where the quality of people's lives has worsened.
I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends to move with extreme care in future closures and to ensure that the facts live up to their commitments; that they will not implement such closures until adequate care is available in the community. There is nothing in itself wrong with residential care and we should not forget that. Often it is right for people who are severely ill.
I cannot support the Bill, let alone vote for it tonight, without signalling the fact that I find the wording in the Bill on financial effects unrealistic. It says:
The Bill should give rise to no additional costs for Health Authorities (in England and Wales), Health Boards (in Scotland) or local authorities. The new provisions … provide a legislative framework for existing good practice.
In the purest terms, that may be right, but we should talk about reality and practicalities. If more social workers and all other agencies involved are doing a better job under the supervision orders, their time will be used for such work and, as other hon. Members have said, there will be less time to deal with less severely ill people. Therefore, I argue that the Bill will require more resources.
All too often we in the House pass legislation, often with support—in principle—from all parties, yet we do not accept that additional resources will be needed as a result. I put my flag up on that issue now. I am absolutely certain that additional resources will be necessary. The work requires additional case conferences. Others have mentioned the involvement of up to eight different agencies and their staff when the orders are put in place. Giving support to the mentally ill in the community is a cumbersome process. I am not denigrating the process, but it is very time consuming. The problem has been that so many of the individuals who may require such assistance have dropped out of the net, and picking them up again, let alone giving them continuing treatment, will be very time consuming. Let there be no mistake—I emphasise the point to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health—mental health service staff, whether they are employed by local authorities or by the NHS, are severely overstretched already.
So much progress has been made in looking after people better that those engaged in that work are now suffering a great deal of stress. I am not being soft about that, nor am I suggesting that management methods cannot be improved to achieve better productivity from

those who care for the mentally ill. It would be unrealistic, however, to believe that such care will not involve additional time, and therefore additional resources.
I support the Bill because it is absolutely essential that we establish a legislative framework to deal with those who are discharged, but who are still severely ill. As has already been said, those people often come out into the community and are pleased to be in a freer, more comfortable and pleasant environment. They often do not, however, take the very medication that has enabled them to be discharged in the first place. It is essential for them to take that medication. Without the proposed legislative framework to ensure that, I cannot see how those people will continue to improve, let alone make progress in the community or not put themselves and others at risk. On that basis, the Bill is long overdue.

Mr. John 'Gunnell: I have listened to the entire debate, so I intend to underline briefly certain points that have been raised. The unanimity that has marked hon. Members' contributions is perhaps not surprising, because I assume that those present are interested in mental health services and the particular problems posed by the Bill. I have identified three particular weaknesses in the Bill and it is interesting to note that two of them have already been the subject of much comment.
I do not think that the closure of the large mental health institutions caused the difficulties that the Bill is designed to address. As the hon. Members for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) said, those difficulties have arisen because of the loss of 35,000 acute psychiatric beds between 1981 and 1991. Without that loss, a certain number of people living in the community now would still be receiving hospital care from time to time, if not long term. Unfortunately, such care is no longer available to them.
The Bill's efforts to overcome the difficulties of care provision prompt me to raise three points. First, there is some confusion between the role of a health authority and that of social services departments. The health authority is clearly the lead authority, which nominates the responsible medical officer and supervisor. No doubt the health authority will take overall responsibility for taking and conveying patients who are subject to supervised discharge. No doubt health authorities will turn to the police to get that job done on many occasions, but according to the Bill, they are the lead authority. Social services take the lead, however, in providing community services and community care. Perhaps social services should also take the lead after the responsible medical officer has done his work. A greater input from social services is warranted rather than simply one social worker's approval of a supervised discharge. Baroness Jay suggested in the other place that the guardianship principles in the Mental Health Act 1983 could have served the Government's purpose instead of the Bill. She suggested that the guardianship powers envisaged in the 1983 Act could be beefed up to accommodate difficult cases, but that the original role of the guardian would be better suited to the needs of the mentally ill generally. I urge the Government to consider revising the 1983 Act to bring it up to date in line with current practice and available facilities.
If social services are not at least an equal party to the health authority when considering an application for a supervised discharge, their professional partnership, which is vital to making a success of care in the community, will be downplayed. There should be a partnership and liaison not just between health authorities and social services, but between voluntary agencies. Some of those organisations have already expressed their concerns to us about the Bill. Housing authorities should also be party to that partnership, which should be as extensive as possible. As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) said, it should embrace carers and those who use the services.
We must develop such partnerships and liaison rather than simply rely on the strong-arm-of-the-law approach, which seems to be explicit in the Bill, given the role of the police in taking and conveying those who are described as mentally disordered patients to a place of residence or training. I have no doubt that the public safety aspect is important and must be taken into account, but we proceed best through partnership. Certain powers must be invested in that partnership, but I am not convinced that the power to take and convey should be one of them.
Secondly, people are confused about the scope of the take-and-convey power. I know that in the Bill it applies to those under supervised discharge, but that is not clearly understood by those in the community. The Government estimate that around 3,000 people may be affected by the Bill, because should they not take their medication, they might be a danger particularly to themselves, but also, on occasion, to others. Far more than those 3,000 people were discharged from institutions ages ago. There is no likelihood of them being affected by the Bill, but many believe that they are under threat from what they judge to be a power of arrest. Were it applied loosely, that power would be draconian. No explanation has to be offered when someone is taken and conveyed, provided that the appropriate care workers have agreed to that.
The meaning of the term "mentally disordered", to whom the procedure will apply, is not clear to those in the outside world. It may be clear when seen in the context of the Bill, but more effort must be made to explain it, because some of my constituents are worried by the Bill for no reason. Their fear may be explained by the fact that many former mental health patients have been scarred by their earlier experiences. Some were kept for years in institutions that were unable to offer them any help. That happened either because of errors in their diagnosis or, in the not too distant past, because they had been sent to such institutions as inappropriate punishment for alleged offences. We have all heard of women who were put in institutional care when they became pregnant out of wedlock. I know of one constituent who spent 25 years in institutional care because he stole a bottle of milk. It is not surprising that people with such experience, who are now settled in the outside world, living unobtrusively, still feel under some kind of threat and in a sense discriminated against. They are worried that the Bill might apply to them and that the police might come to take and convey them without being told on whose authority that decision has been taken. Their anxiety is due to the experiences that they have suffered.
We have to make it crystal clear to whom the Bill might apply. The Minister will be aware that we are not happy about its phraseology, nor about the manner in which he will seek to implement the take-and-convey procedures. I believe that the extent to which those procedures might apply must be clarified.
Thirdly, nearly all hon. Members have said that it is unrealistic and impractical to offer no financial resources for the Bill's implementation. The Bill's necessary measures should not be implemented at the expense of the overall standard of general mental health services.
The Select Committee on Health studied mental health provision and envisaged an expanded service. It wanted more resources to be devoted to it. Even more significantly, the Department of Health's own review team—whose report back in August 1993 led to the Secretary of State's points on mental health—made it clear that extra financial provision was necessary for this measure to work. In these cash-straitened times, it is impractical to expect health authorities or social services departments to find those extra resources.
The original Mental Health Act saw itself as an expression of the commitment to supporting the role of the community, rather than institutions, in the care of the mentally ill. Without resources, the new Bill's intentions to ensure that that is not at the expense of the safety of the public will be just that—good intentions. Unless people with mental illnesses are dealt with by adequately resourced support services in an atmosphere of understanding, the Bill's objectives will not be realised.
Nobody denies that the public must be protected from potentially violent patients in the community. But denying those patients the means to reintegrate themselves into the community by depriving the responsible agencies of additional cash is what makes the Bill more about control than about care in the community.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: We have heard a range of concerns expressed in the debate, both about the current state of community care—especially for those facing mental illness—and about the implications of some of the measures proposed in the Bill. I reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) that the Opposition recognise the extent of public concern about the difficulties which have arisen in a number of instances with tragic consequences, where vulnerable mentally ill patients have slipped through the net of care services.
I am conscious that some of the cases which have occurred away from London have not been reported, and I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) referred, of a tragedy affecting a child. Other cases have occurred elsewhere in the country.
While we share the Government's desire to move towards care in the community provision for vast numbers of people who would previously have been incarcerated in mental hospitals, we have serious worries that the policy of bringing about a rapid rundown of large, long-stay psychiatric hospitals has not been accompanied by a similar commitment to proper development provision within the community. It is that one-sided community care policy that is at the heart of the problems that the Government seek to address with the Bill.
While we will use the opportunities provided by the measure to offer constructive proposals to safeguard the public and the patients, our central concern is to press the Government to take seriously the fact that community care is about rather more than just closing mental hospitals.
A number of hon. Members present for today's debate were also present for the debate on mental illness initiated by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 10 May. They will recall that I posed two key questions to the Government that day of direct relevance to the measure that we are considering this evening. First, I asked what happened to the patients concerned when 70,000 psychiatric beds were removed in the 10 years up to 1992–93. Secondly, I asked what happened to the public resources released by that huge closure programme.
The record shows that the Minister answered neither question when he wound up, because the Government have admitted on several occasions in answer to myself and to other hon. Members that they simply do not know the answers. There is no year-by-year breakdown of how many patients have been discharged to independent or semi-independent accommodation or to hostel provision, or how many have been discharged to attend day centres, day care or other forms of community provision. There is no record of what subsequently happened to them on their discharge or as they moved on from care provision within the community.
As we are charged as Members of Parliament with safeguarding public resources, we must be concerned at the fact that we have lost not only the patients but apparently billions of pounds of funding which was previously tied up in the resourcing of hospital care. The Government cannot tell us where that money has gone, but it is obvious from the problems to which the Bill is a response that it has not been diverted into the programme of re-provision within the community that is obviously required to ensure that the rundown of hospital care means improving the quality of patients' lives.
Our central concerns in relation to the measure relate to the two new orders at the heart of the Bill—the supervised discharge order and the community care order in Scotland. They are the culmination of a lengthy period of debate on whether a change in the law was needed to ensure that patients within the community could be required to follow a particular care plan. The initial proposals some years ago for compulsory treatment orders have reappeared in a range of forms, with the Government finally opting for supervised discharge orders and their Scottish equivalent.
It is surprising—given the length of time that this debate has been under way—that the Bill's central proposals have so little support from the individual organisations that will have the task of applying the legislation in practice. Virtually all those directly concerned have been vociferous in their criticisms, especially of the new powers introduced by clauses 1 and 4. The Community Psychiatric Nurses Association, the British Association of Social Workers, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Psychiatrists have all expressed reservations, as has the Law Society.
My background before entering Parliament in 1987 was as a social worker, and a number of colleagues here today—including my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) and for Stockport (Ms Coffey) —have similar backgrounds. I approach my evaluation of the measure with a particular eye on its application in practice. From that perspective, I—like others—am at a

loss to understand the need for the introduction of a completely new order when the existing power of guardianship offers an almost identical provision.
During my time in local authority social work, I worked for many years as an authorised mental welfare officer. I looked to guardianship to offer the safeguards necessary when, in a few situations, it was felt that some statutory supervision was required. That power was used sparingly, but my experience was that it was used in a positive way to enhance the opportunities available in the community to a small number of patients who would otherwise have spent lengthy periods in hospital under section. Guardianship facilitated community care, while offering protection to the patient and to the public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North said that the supervised discharge orders and the similar Scottish provision duplicate the existing guardianship powers in a way that will inevitably cause confusion among those who have to differentiate between the two. The main difference that has been proposed is a new power to take and convey the patients to a place where they are required to live or to attend. That power has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, and has been the subject of particular criticism as a provision that could totally undermine the consensual relationship upon which the most successful after-care supervision is based.
It is important to underline the fact that one cannot care for people in a community environment without some consent and trust between the person being supervised and the supervisor. Those involved are concerned about how the measure will operate when it is implemented, as they recognise that that element will cause difficulties between the person supervising the patient and the person being supervised. I hope that the Government will listen to that. It is not a partisan political point, but a point of practicality that has been raised with us—and with Conservative Members—by the organisations and individuals concerned.
The provision to take and convey could have been understood if the Government had taken the step of also including compulsory treatment within the new order, although I emphasise that I am not suggesting that that should have been done. But as it stands, a patient taken or conveyed under the order would be within his or her rights to refuse subsequent medical treatment. It will be necessary to make an application under a separate section of the Mental Health Act to enforce such treatment. As one writer with a legal background has put it, the community psychiatric nurse would have the power to take a horse to water, but not to make him drink.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) —who was critical of the provision—failed to grasp the key issue in this measure which is causing great concern to a number of organisations and individuals. If a patient no longer complies with a care plan, the only additional provision is the obligation on the care team to inform an approved social worker, who may consider applying for compulsory admission to hospital. But nearest relatives can do that already under existing law. Unlike guardianship, the new powers would be in the hands of health authorities in a move away from the lead agency status on community care which the Government introduced in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
As well as the confusion with guardianship that I have mentioned, the shift from local authorities will raise more questions about who is responsible at a local level. The organisational responsibility question is another area that causes us extreme concern. We need to know exactly who is doing what. The clear similarity with the guardianship provisions organised by local authorities will cause immense confusion among practitioners at a local level.
While I understand that the measure is intended to formalise the care programme approach in some respects, that could have been achieved with fairly minor amendments to existing guardianship powers, with health authorities given similar status in law to local authorities. Amending guardianship would have been more in line with the wider policy moves in the direction of care in the community, because it would have enabled the development of a non-hospital route to formalised supervision in a way that the Bill does not allow.
It is not helpful to convey the clear message—as the Bill Does—that the legal enforcement of key elements of the care plan within the community depends upon discharge from in-patient hospital care. While I appreciate that the prime motivation for the measure has been severe problems concerning patients who have left hospital, it is important to recognise within the context of current policy that care does not necessarily have to begin with an experience of hospital in-patient treatment. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) touched on that point.
The fact that the proposals seem to be at odds with wider policy developments to some extent underlines the Mental Health Act Commission's argument that existing legislation, which was based substantially on policies that were in place in the 1950s—the 1983 Act was based primarily on the framework of the Mental Health Act 1959—has been largely overtaken by radical moves in the direction of community care. It is pretty obvious that those who are charged with the task of overseeing the legislation believe strongly that simply tampering with elements of existing mental health law will not succeed in making current legislation relevant to current circumstances.
The need for a new mental health Act, which offers a framework reflecting current policy, will clearly not go away. I was pleased to hear the Minister concede that his mind was not closed to a much wider review of the legislation. Clearly, the legislation is grossly outdated. The Mental Health Act Commission has stated that there is a need for new legislation that reflects contemporary policies in contemporary times, and I hope that the Government will take that call seriously.
The prime reason for introducing the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill is, as the Government said, public protection. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East made clear at the outset, the Labour party is as concerned as the Government to ensure that the public and the patients themselves should not be put at risk by inadequate care policies. As our amendment shows, we take a wider view of the causes of the problem and of the solutions.
Public protection must be a key objective, but as the Mental Health Foundation inquiry put it last year:
If everyone with a severe mental illness had appropriate services, sensitively provided and adequately funded, there would be much less concern about this issue".
Such services and provisions do exist in some areas, but, as the Audit Commission and the Health Select Committee have pointed out, they vary markedly in their quality and availability.
There are good examples of patients being offered long-term supported accommodation. There are some excellent models of asylum within the community, with safe houses and other forms of sanctuary along the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) mentioned.
There are excellent mental health resource centres in some areas, with round-the-clock crisis services and outreach provision. But in other areas, such key elements of community care provision are either minimal or non-existent.'They have not been developed alongside the hospital closure programme, and that fact must be addressed. We must recognise also that access to acute hospital-based services offers an important back-up to care in the community, but it is clearly grossly inadequate in some parts of Britain. A number of Conservative Members made that point today.
Those factors have an important bearing on the reasons for the mental health Bill, but the Bill itself will clearly do nothing to ensure that adequate services are available to patients who are subject to the new order. The Department of Health review team said that the use of the new power implied a reciprocal obligation on statutory services to provide the support that patients need, but the Government tell us that it is a nil-cost measure. Without the necessary back-up support and services, any formalised supervision—whether under discharge orders or guardianship—will mean very little.
That point is central to our amendment, which reflects the very serious concerns about the Bill expressed by a range of organisations. There is a clear need to ensure that patients and the public are protected. However, we believe that the Government were very badly advised in bringing forward a measure that has not been thought out properly. For that and for the other reasons that I have outlined tonight, I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.

Mr. Bowis: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to some of the points that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I think that there has been something of a competition—which is unusual in this place—to catch the eye of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who has identified himself as the guardian of the Select Committee on Selection. Conservative Members have appealed to him to look after their interests as the legislation moves towards the Committee stage, and there have been similar hints from Labour Members as well. I hope that we have established in the hon. Gentleman's mind that there is a lot of interest in the measure.

Mr. Kirkwood: A lot of talent.

Mr. Bowls: And a lot of talent. Despite some of the comments made during the debate, hon. Members have


expressed broad agreement that we should look carefully at the measure, and that we must protect those people in the community who have severe mental illnesses, while also protecting their families, their carers and members of the general public.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you have graciously allowed the debate to range quite widely today. Perhaps that is inevitable, when one examines the background to the measure. It is interesting to see how the pieces of the jigsaw to which I referred in my opening speech will come together. I make it absolutely clear that the measures in the Bill are not an end in themselves. They will operate with all the other pieces of the strategy to secure the safety and well-being of severely mentally ill people and of the wider community.
I do not promise to cope with every point raised in the short time available to me, but I have no doubt that some of them will be raised again during the Committee stage. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—who explained that he had to leave the Chamber—inquired about the Bill's compatibility with the Children (Scotland) Bill. I am assured that the measures are compatible with both the existing and the proposed legislation. Children under 16 may, in very rare circumstances, be detained in hospital under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, and that is why we have made community care orders available for such patients.
The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) referred to a tragedy of which I am aware, and emphasised the need to improve the system. He gave a qualified welcome to the Bill, and said that it does not address all of the problems. That is a perfectly fair comment: the Bill does not seek to achieve everything. It is a narrow, measured Bill and only one part of the Government's strategy.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to refer to the need for better community services. The Government preach that constantly to health and social services and to community health services, and we have made the money available to ensure that there can be improvements. However, we must ensure that those resources are targeted, and are used wisely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson)—I hope that I have the geography right in this case—rightly paid tribute to the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. Tributes have been paid on both sides of the Chamber to the NSF and other voluntary organisations such as MIND and the Jewish Association for the mentally ill. I join in those tributes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East rightly paid special tribute—as others have—to carers. We have done much to support carers in the House in recent months, and nowhere is that more important than where carers of people with severe mental illness are concerned. They have a tremendous burden to carry for people in their families whom they love, and we should do what we can to support them. The best way to support those carers is to ensure that they have the assurance that the services are there—the range of services, encompassing provision of beds and community services. I believe that those carers would welcome the measure.
The number of beds was mentioned several times. I can best respond to that by drawing attention to the survey of English mental hospitals published in March 1993, which showed that the number of places for people with mental illness had been steady, at about 80,000. The difference

is in the new range of provision that exists. That is not to suggest for a moment that I do not accept some of the arguments about beds, but the number of places has been fairly steady in recent years.
There is talk about new funding, and that was reflected in several speeches from both sides of the House about the resources needed to make the Bill work effectively. The specific figures on the face of the Bill refer to the tribunals and those specific additional costs.
We must regard the reference to resources and the references to the cost of the Bill in the context of the greatly increasing resources that have been made available for mental health provision—for the national health service and social services—in recent years. I have no doubt that those resources will continue to increase, because mental health is a priority in the NHS and in social services. The more we are able to make progress—as we will—with our inter-agency purchasing guide and to encourage joint commissioning and so on, the more resources will be made available for those measures, but they will be made available for the whole of provision for mental health.
In connection with the Bill, we have spoken about the numbers of people that we are dealing with. They are quite small numbers in any one district. Nevertheless, although it is unquantifiable, one needs to take account of the cost to the community and to the health and social services if that type of measure is not implemented. There are enormous costs in trying to locate and look after people who have not been adequately supervised, so the Bill could, in some ways, be a cost-saving measure. Certainly it will make for a more efficient service.
Compulsory medication was mentioned. Our line, as I said earlier, is that, where medication has to be compulsory, that should be decided in the setting of a clinical decision by psychiatrists in a hospital, not out in the community, but I know the opinions about that.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire mentioned titles, and no doubt he will return to that in Committee. I do not believe that the title "community care order" is misleading to professionals. Perhaps I have a greater faith in their ability to understand guidance and titles than he has, but I am sure that we can consider that in Committee.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred to the Scottish Select Committee. That has been considering the closure of psychiatric hospitals in Scotland, and when that report is published, it will be useful background to some of our discussions. However, as I said, we have an overall policy of ensuring that beds are provided. I shall return later to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) about the range that we need, and I absolutely agree with what has been said.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire spoke about the pressures on community psychiatric nurses. I understand the anxieties, but we need to get close to CPNs to talk them through the role because, as I said, we would regard them as being the supervisors and carrying out that role, just as we regard them on the whole as doing the key worker role under the care programme approach. The new role only formalises in law what they would have done under the old, and reflects the well-established principle that a patient's care plan should be the responsibility of a named person.
CPNs will work as a team, with joint responsibilities for decision making. Numerically, that should not make a great difference to their case load. However, those are fair arguments to make.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) rightly referred to the fact that suicide is the great threat to the people we are discussing, and one of our targets is to reduce the number of suicides. It is one of our "The Health of the Nation" strategies. The Somerset progress is encouraging. My hon. Friend rightly referred to the way in which Somerset got ahead of the game in care in the community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton also mentioned homelessness. That is outside the scope of the Bill, but I would draw his attention to two things. One is the homeless mentally ill initiative, which has been remarkably successful in the streets of London. Various hon. Members mentioned central London and its needs. That initiative has helped to take people out of the boxes and blankets and into hostels and long-term accommodation. I believe that it can build on that.
Yesterday—it seems a long time ago now—I took part in the third of the seminars that we have been holding jointly with the Department of the Environment, considering the way in which housing can play its part in community care as a whole, and especially the care of those with mental health problems. Much joint work is going on between Departments and between agencies.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) mentioned the number of CPNs, which is important. They have quadrupled in our time, but we shall obviously need to continue planning the manpower and womanpower needed in that regard.
I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) as chairman of the all-party group, which has got off the ground again and has been very helpful to us. He emphasised the need to involve users, and I wholly agree with that. The Bill does that, and we shall ensure that they are consulted on any revision of the codes of practice that follows from the Bill.
Some of the most valuable times that I have spent have been with conferences of users and purchasers, at which they come together to consider local needs. Users are involved in the care programme approach to planning. We can build on that. Everyone seems to want a charter nowadays, and that is a tribute to the initiatives of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Charters are obviously regarded as guarantees of good—quality service—guarantees of people being involved in planning the services they need—and we shall certainly consider those in mental health. I believe that much of what the hon. Member for Motherwell, South said will be covered in guidance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) made what has already been described as an excellent speech, supporting the Bill. He also mentioned some of the issues, not least concerning London. As he will know, the mental health task force has carried out its survey of London and followed it up. I believe that progress is already visible on that, but we need to do much more work, and work much harder, on London's problems to begin to solve them for the longer term. My hon. Friend is also right to mention families and their civil liberties, which we should remember.
I said that I would return to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks on hospital closures. I understand his argument. We have said clearly that we are not closing hospitals until and unless we are sure that the services are there in the community. However, I go much further. I say that we need to ensure that there are hospital places for different categories of need for people with mental illness. That goes for medium-term needs, with hospital hostel-type concepts, it goes for secure accommodation, for acute beds, for 24-hour crisis beds, for long-term beds and for asylum. We need all that. We need the package of beds, just as we want the package in the community.
I know that I have not mentioned one or two hon. Members. I wanted briefly to mention the hon. Members who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, to thank them for their broad support, if I may call it that, even if they will divide the House on their amendment.
The Opposition acknowledged that we are trying to fill a gap that needed filling and which has been identified, as both Opposition Front Benchers said, by reports and inquiries. We have discussed the medium-secure beds, and their provision. We have talked about resources, too. I did not hear much from the Labour party as to what additional resources it will pledge over and above what we have provided. We have come to accept that; the Opposition talk about the general need for more resources but do not give any specific pledges. I am therefore not surprised that they changed the terms of their amendment tonight.
Several hon. Members raised the issue of guardianship. I remind them that we want to encourage guardianship. It is not used a great deal; when it is, it is generally used for people with social functioning problems. We believe that it should be a medically led regime. Baroness Jay sought to promote guardianship by adding to it the power to convey. We do not think that is the way forward; we think that this Bill is.
We shall also examine the role of the Mental Health Act Commission when reviewing the Bill generally.
Black mental health is an issue that I take very seriously. I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) raised it. The first initiative that I took as a Minister was to launch an inquiry into the reasons for the apparent variations in treatment and diagnosis and in the type of accommodation for black mentally ill people. We are going to look carefully and objectively—without too much emotion—at this subject, without ducking any of the questions. I shall go on doing that, but it is separate from this Bill, and I hope that it will not be seen as a threat to these people.
The Bill seeks to protect some very vulnerable people, whose illness can cause harm to themselves or others. Tragedies are rare, but that is no reason not to try to avoid them by strengthening supervision. We must reassure the public and the families who have people with severe mental illnesses living among them. I have listened carefully to everything said this evening. I shall listen again in Committee.
Everything that I have heard confirms what I said earlier: that this Bill is but one measure in the overall strategy, together with the CPA, registers, key workers, discharge procedures and a range of bed and community services. The resources are important; their effective use even more so. Resources have risen and will no doubt go on doing so.
Everyone has mentioned the revision of the Mental Health Act, but nobody has really told me what they want changing in it. In due course, we shall certainly look at the Act; in the meantime, a lot of people need not changes in the law, but a tightening of performance. The few who do need a change in the law are those whom we have dealt with in this Bill.
I hope that the House will reject the amendment, and give the Bill a Second Reading.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 236.

Division No. 167]
[7.02 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dewar, Donald


Ainger, Nick
Dixon, Don


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Donohoe, Brian H


Allen, Graham
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Armstrong, Hilary
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Eastham, Ken


Ashton,Joe
Enright, Derek


Austin-Walker, John
Etherington, Bill


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barnes, Harry
Fatchett, Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Faulds, Andrew


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Flynn, Paul


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bennett, Andrew F
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Benton, Joe
Foster, Don (Bath)


Betts, Clive
Foulkes, George


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Fyfe, Maria


Blunkett, David
Galbraith, Sam


Boateng, Paul
Galloway, George


Bradley, Keith
Gapes, Mike


Bray, Dr Jeremy
George, Bruce


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gerrard, Neil


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Godsiff, Roger


Burden, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Byers, Stephen
Gordon, Mildred


Caborn, Richard
Graham, Thomas


Callaghan, Jim
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, D N
Gunnell, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hall, Mike


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hanson, David


Chidgey, David
Harvey, Nick


Chisholm, Malcolm
Heppell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoey, Kate


Clelland, David
Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Coffey, Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Connarty, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoyle, Doug


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corston, Jean
Hutton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Jamieson, David


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Denham, John
Jowell, Tessa





Keen, Alan
Pope, Greg


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,CS)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


Kirkwood, Archy
Purchase, Ken


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lewis, Terry
Radice, Giles


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Raynsford, Nick


Livingstone, Ken
Reid, Dr John


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rendel, David


Llwyd, Elfyn
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Loyden, Eddie
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McAllion, John
Rooker, Jeff


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooney, Terry


McCartney, Ian
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Macdonald, Calum
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


McFall, John
Simpson, Alan


McKelvey, William
Skinner, Dennis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S  Fsbury)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, LJew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maclennan, Robert
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


McNamara, Kevin
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Spellar, John


Maddock, Diana
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mahon, Alice
Steinberg, Gerry


Marek, DrJohn
Stevenson, George


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stott, Roger


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Maxton, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Timms, Stephen


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll  Bute)
Tipping, Paddy


Milburn, Alan
Touhig, Don


Miller, Andrew
Trimble, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tyler, Paul


Morgan, Rhodri
Vaz, Keith


Morley, Elliot
Walley, Joan


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wareing, Robert N


Mowlam, Marjorie
Watson, Mike


Mudie, George
Welsh, Andrew


Mullin, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Murphy, Paul
Wilson, Brian


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Wise, Audrey


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Worthington, Tony


O'Hara, Edward
Wright Dr Tony


Olner, Bill
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Parry, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pickthall, Colin
Mr. Eric Clarke and


Pike, Peter L
Mr. Dennis Turner.


NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Amess, David
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brandreth, Gyles


Ashby, David
Brazier, Julian


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Bright, Sir Graham


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Brown, M (Brigg  Cl'thorpes)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Burns, Simon


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Burt, Alistair


Bates, Michael
Butcher, John


Batiste, Spencer
Butler, Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carrington, Matthew


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carttiss, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clappison, James


Booth, Hartley
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Boswell, Tim
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey






Coe, Sebastian
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Congdon, David
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Conway, Derek
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Knapman, Roger


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Couchman, James
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Cran, James
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Day, Stephen
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Devlin, Tim
Legg, Barry


Dicks, Terry
Leigh, Edward


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Dover, Den
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Duncan, Alan
Lidington, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lightbown, David


Dunn, Bob
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Dykes, Hugh
Luff, Peter


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
MacKay, Andrew


Elletson, Harold
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Madel, Sir David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Malone, Gerald


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Mans, Keith


Evennett, David
Marlow, Tony


Faber, David
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fabricant, Michael
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fishburn, Dudley
Mates, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Merchant, Piers


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Mills, Iain


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Moate, Sir Roger


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


Fry, Sir Peter
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gale, Roger
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Gallie, Phil
Nelson, Anthony


Gardiner, Sir George
Neubert, Sir Michael


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gill, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Gillan, Cheryl
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gorst, Sir John
Ottaway, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Page, Richard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Pawsey, James


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hague, William
Pickles, Eric


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hannam, Sir John
Powell, William (Corby)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Harris, David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Richards, Rod


Hawkins, Nick
Riddick, Graham


Hawksley, Warren
Robathan, Andrew


Hayes, Jerry
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Heald, Oliver
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hendry, Charles
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hicks, Robert
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Horam, John
Sackville, Tom


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunter, Andrew
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jack, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Jenkin, Bernard
Sims, Roger


Jessel, Toby
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)





Spencer, Sir Derek
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Viggers, Peter


Spink, Dr Robert
Walden, George


Spring, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waller, Gary


Steen, Anthony
Ward, John


Stephen, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stem, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Stewart, Allan
Wells, Bowen


Streeter, Gary
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sweeney, Walter
Whittingdale, John


Sykes, John
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wilshire, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thomason, Roy
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thomton, Sir Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Thumham, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)



Tredinnick, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Trend, Michael
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Trotter, Neville
Mr. David Willetts.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the developments in regard to Brent Spar since Prime Minister's Question Time, when the Prime Minister made an explicit statement on the matter, and given the change of mind by Shell in the interim, have you been given notice that a Minister will make a fresh statement to the House this evening'? As the issue is of crucial importance and there has been a major change of policy by the Government and Shell since Prime Minister's Question Time, will you ensure that the House is briefed before anybody else?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The answer to the first question is that I have received no such notification. The other matters are really the responsibility of the Government and I cannot ensure anything from the Chair, but I am sure that those points will have been noted by those on the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today's events are not only a triumph for the environment movement and the general public, but a total humiliation for the Prime Minister. Although it may appear that matters are resolved, Government policy apparently has not changed. They have made no statement and, potentially, another 50 installations could be buried under the North sea. Surely the Government must explain to the House whether Government policy has changed or whether the decision was taken by Shell.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the Prime Minister repeatedly affirmed the Government's policy to dump at sea, would it not be appropriate for him to come to the House to explain the latest developments and


apologise to those hon. Members he disparaged during Prime Minister's Question Time who tried to put forward just this policy?

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely that is absolute nonsense. There is no Government responsibility whatsoever. The company made a commercial decision which was for that company to make, and the Prime Minister has no responsibility whatever in the matter.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you are well aware, there is direct Government responsibility. Yesterday, the Prime Minister himself described the proposal for onshore decommissioning as "incredible". As the Prime Minister put his personal authority behind that policy yesterday and today, is not he the appropriate Minister to make a statement to the House? Usually, when the Prime Minister backs people to the hilt, they end up sinking. In this case they have ended up not sinking. Are we not due an explanation?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must make it clear to the House, as the representative of the Chair, that these matters do not lie within my control.

Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Dr. Godman: No. I wish to make a point concerning the announcement of the change in direction. As the hon. Member who first demanded in the House that the installation be brought ashore, may I point out by way of

clarification that the Government have every responsibility for such decisions under part I of the Petroleum Act 1987? The Government allowed Shell to go ahead with its plans until they lost their collective nerve.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must beware of this turning into a mini-debate. The point of order for the Chair is clear. I can only draw the matter to the attention of the members of the Treasury Bench. Apart from that, it is not my responsibility.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since the points of order began, two Scottish Office Ministers have appeared on the Treasury Bench. Would it be appropriate for one of those to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement, and would you agree to that, or would it be better if the President of the Board of Trade came to the House to make such a statement, because it is he who now acts on behalf of the Prime Minister to mop everything up?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Those are all very interesting suggestions, but they are not matters for me. We must move on to the next business.

Orders of the Day — MENTAL HEALTH (PATIENTS IN THE COMMUNITY) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
Question agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Costs of Enquiries etc.) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

COSTS OF HOLDING CERTAIN INQUIRIES ETC.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—
'(5A) Any regulations made by the Secretary of State under the provisions of subsection (5) above shall provide for the application of a service level agreement governing the administration of a qualifying inquiry and the performance of any person appointed to hold it.'.
The amendment would incorporate the concept of service level agreements between the Planning Inspectorate and local authorities in the Bill.
As the Minister knows, the local authority associations are concerned that, as the requirement for inquiries into development plans is established in legislation, local planning authorities are being required to use a service that is offered by only one agency for a function that they are statutorily required to fulfil.
In those circumstances, the Opposition consider it essential that the level of service required of the inspectorate is formally set out with some means of redress for the planning authority if the inspectorate fails to perform adequately.
That issue was raised jointly in Committee with an amendment that would have introduced a contractual relationship between the inspectorate and the local planning authority. The Minister will recall—if I may draw his attention away from his discussions with the deputy Chief Whip to the amendment—that in his response the Government accepted
the need implied for a more satisfactory footing for the arrangements between the planning inspectorate and the individual planning authority on whose behalf the planning inspector holds a development plan inquiry. We appreciate that the planning authorities want to have more say in inquiry arrangements in which they are required to pay what in some cases will be comparatively large sums.
I am sure that the Minister will recall saying that. He went on to argue that the arrangements should not be included in the Bill. He continued:
Many of the factors that influence the practical operation of development plan inquiries such as the number of objections are outside the Planning Inspectorate's control…that is why there are no targets and penalties for the Planning Inspectorate. The difficulty is that there are numerous other parties in the local plan inquiry process, which is not a simple matter of discussion between the planning authority and the Planning Inspectorate."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 May 1995; c. 19.]
I am sure that the Minister recalls saying that too.
In response to other amendments in Committee, the Minister referred to the fact that the inspectorate had proposed a draft service level agreement with local authorities. He has sent a copy of that draft agreement to my hon. Friends and me. He also told us that he had placed a copy in the Library of the House.
The Minister mounted an argument of sorts against a strictly contractual relationship between the inspectorate and planning authorities, but his argument does not justify

making no reference in the Bill to the introduction of a more formal relationship between the inspectorate and local planning authorities.
The local authority associations have been in discussion with the Department for some time and I believe that some progress has been made in trying to resolve the outstanding issues. The amendment would simply include the principle of such an agreement in the Bill without specifying precisely what its contents should be.
It is important, however, that the service level agreement should address the fact that local planning authorities do not have the usual redress of seeking an alternative supplier should the service provided by the inspectorate prove not to be of adequate quality or to provide value for money.
The Opposition believe that the service level agreement should be explicit about the level of service to be provided; measures to be used in assessing the quality of that service; provisions for receiving feedback on quality from the consumers of the service—the local authorities and others who are involved in the planning process—mechanisms by which significant difficulties may be tackled; methods for redress should either party fail to deliver its agreed performance; methods for the resolution of disputes, such as circumstances in which the local planning authority may wish to query matters of factual veracity or reasoning, or to clarify the inspector's recommendation; and, finally, the approach to be taken in the event of a significant disruption such as the illness of an inspector.
It may not be necessary for the universal service level agreement to contain administrative arrangements such as those for making documents publicly available, for the referencing of documents, for the hours and days of the week for sittings, for timing and for exchanging written evidence, for the procedure for giving evidence and for cross-examination, and for round-table discussions. Some of those matters may depend on the circumstances of the inquiry and the nature of the issues raised. Some may also need to be agreed at the pre-inquiry meeting.
Equity between different inquiries demands that the procedures followed are as universal as possible. The service level agreement could play an important role in establishing a common approach. Matters that are specific to an inquiry should be dealt with in a local supplement to the agreement to be prepared after the pre-inquiry meeting.
This simple amendment would formalise discussions and agreements that are currently proceeding. There is nothing controversial about it and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Mr. David Rendel: I support the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), because I too believe that the introduction of the service agreement is welcome but that it needs to be formalised.
Inquiries are becoming more complex and important because so much now depends on them. It is difficult to get a development proposal agreed once the local structure plans have been finalised.
We should, therefore, look hard at the procedures that we are using for inquiries and inspectors. On Second Reading, I said:
We need some form of guidance about what to expect from our inspectors. The Government are keen on charters at the moment. Perhaps there should be an inspectors charter, which would lay down some ground rules on how they would work and what local authorities could expect from them."—[Official Report, 12 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 312.]


It was therefore very welcome when, shortly thereafter, the Government made proposals very much along those lines. I welcomed that in Committee and I welcome it tonight, but it is right that the procedure should be formalised. We do not want the proposals to go ahead merely as proposals and not to be properly implemented as they will be if the amendment is agreed tonight. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Only a lawyer could think out amendment No. 1. The route suggested by the amendment is likely to end in a legally binding contract that would remove the administrative flexibility that the planning authority and Planning Inspectorate need to operate inquiries efficiently.
The need of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) to regulate everything is part of the difficulty of his whole thinking. We desperately need administrative flexibility, which is what we seek. Under the amendment, the contract would have to be enforceable by either party. It would almost certainly increase the scope of disputes. It would not improve the local planning process and only lawyers would improve their income.
We prefer the approach of proceeding by agreement between those responsible for managing the development and the planning inquiry process. Officials in my Department and in the Planning Inspectorate are consulting officers of the local authority associations and the Royal Town Planning Institute on the draft of a service agreement.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Sir Paul Beresford: I shall not give way. We have been through this time and again, and it is a waste of time continuing with it. The aim is to finalise an agreement that the associations could commend to their members as soon as practicable. The Planning Inspectorate's aim is to offer the agreement to individual planning authorities, where the terms have been finalised, following the current consultation. We do not need the amendment. It would be counter-productive.

Dr. Jones: Will the Minister confirm a comment that he made in Committee—that he would consider establishing a working party with local authority bodies to consider the draft service level agreement? Is that still a proposal or has he withdrawn it?

Sir Paul Beresford: I repeat that a useful meeting was held on 2 June and that a further meeting, to discuss a revised text of the draft service agreement, is planned in the near future.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 197.

Division No. 168]
[7.30 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bayley, Hugh


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Beith, Rt Hon AJ


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bennett, Andrew F


Ashton, Joe
Betts, Clive


Austin-Walker, John
Blunkett, David





Boateng, Paul
Kilfoyle, Peter


Bradley, Keith
Kirkwood, Archy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Burden, Richard
Lewis, Terry


Callaghan, Jim
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Canavan, Dennis
Llwyd, Elfyn


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Loyden, Eddie


Chidgey, David
Lynne, Ms Liz


Chisholm, Malcolm
McAllion, John


Clapham, Michael
McAvoy, Thomas


Clelland, David
McCartney, Ian


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Macdonald, Calum


Coffey, Ann
Maclennan, Robert


Connarty, Michael
McWilliam, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Madden, Max


Corbyn, Jeremy
Maddock, Diana


Corston, Jean
Mahon, Alice


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marek, Dr John


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davidson, Ian
Martlew, Eric


Denham, John
Maxton, John


Dewar, Donald
Meale, Alan


Dixon, Don
Michael, Alun


Donohoe, Brian H
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dowd, Jim
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll  Bute)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Milburn, Alan


Eagle, Ms Angela
Morgan, Rhodri


Eastham, Ken
Morley, Elliot


Enright, Derek
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Etherington, Bill
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fatcnett, Derek
Mudie, George


Faulds, Andrew
Mullin, Chris


Flynn, Paul
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Foster, Don (Bath)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Foulkes, George
O'Hara, Edward


Fyfe, Maria
Olner, Bill


Galbraith, Sam
O'Neill, Martin


Gapes, Mike
Parry, Robert


George, Bruce
Pickthall, Colin


Gerrard, Neil
Rike, Peter L


Godman, Dr Norman A
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Godsiff, Roger
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Gordon, Mildred
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Graham, Thomas
Purchase, Ken


Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Reid, Dr John


Grocott, Bruce
Rendel, David


Gunnell, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Hall, Mike
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Hanson, David
Rooker, Jeff


Heppell, John
Rooney, Terry


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Simpson, Alan


Hinchliffe, David
Skinner, Dennis


Hoey, Kate
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S  Fsbury)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Home Robertson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Hood, Jimmy
Spellar, John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Steinberg, Gerry


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Stevenson, George


Ingram, Adam
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Jamieson, David
Taylor, Matthew (Trvro)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Tipping, Paddy


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Touhig, Don


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Turner, Dennis


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tyler, Paul


Keen, Alan
Vaz, Keith


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,CS)
Walley, Joan


Khabra, Piara S
Wareing, Robert N






Watson, Mike
Wright, Dr Tony


Wicks, Malcolm
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wilson, Brian



Winnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wise, Audrey
Mr. Stephen Byers and


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Joe Benton.


NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Amess, David
Fry, Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Gardiner, Sir George


Amold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gill, Christopher


Ashby, David
Gillan, Cheryl


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Gorst, Sir John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bates, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Batiste, Spencer
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hague, William


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Body, Sir Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hannam, Sir John


Booth, Hartley
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Harris, David


Bowis, John
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Hawksley, Warren


Brazier, Julian
Hayes, Jerry


Bright, Sir Graham
Heald, Oliver


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brown, M (Brigg  Cl'thorpes)
Hendry, Charles


Burns, Simon
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Burt, Alistair
Horam, John


Butcher, John
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Butler, Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Jack, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jenkin, Bernard


Chapman, Sydney
Jessel, Toby


Cappison, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coe, Sebastian
Kirkhope, Timothy


Congdon, David
Knapman, Roger


Conway, Derek
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Couchman, James
Legg, Barry


Cran, James
Leigh, Edward


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Day, Stephen
Lidington, David


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lightbown, David


Devlin, Tim
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Dicks, Terry
Luff, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacKay, Andrew


Dover, Den
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Duncan, Alan
McLoughlin, Patrick


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Madel, Sir David


Dunn, Bob
Maitland, Lady Oiga


Dykes, Hugh
Malone, Gerald


Elletson, Harold
Mans, Keith


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Merchant, Piers


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Mills, Iain


Evennett, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Faber, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Fabricant, Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Moss, Malcolm


Fishbum, Dudley
Nelson, Anthony


Forman, Nigel
Neubert, Sir Michael


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Nicholls, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)





Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Pawsey, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thomason, Roy


Pickles, Eric
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Powell, William (Corby)
Thurnham, Peter


Richards, Rod
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Riddick, Graham
Tredinnick, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Trend, Michael


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Trotter, Neville


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Viggers, Peter


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Walden, George


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Shersby, Sir Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sims, Roger
Waterson, Nigel


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wells, Bowen


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whittingdale, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Widdecombe, Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Steen, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Stephen, Michael
Wilshire, David


Stem, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stewart, Allan
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Streeter, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Sweeney, Walter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sykes, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. David Willetts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Vaz: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—
'(5A) The prescribed standard amount referred to in subsection 5(b) above shall not be changed more than once in each calendar year; and any change shall be subject to consultation with such organisations as the Secretary of State considers to be representative of local authorities.'.
As drafted, the Bill enables the Secretary of State to recover from local planning authorities the costs of appointing inspectors to hold local public inquiries. Central to that is a power to make regulations setting out the detail of the costs to be charged. The regulations will, in particular, set out a prescribed standard amount for the cost of an inspector.
The subject of the charging provisions was probed in Committee. Replying to questions, the Minister argued:
The way in which the Bill is constructed will be an inducement to both local authorities and the Government to reduce costs. Given that the standard spending assessment includes a payment from the Government to local government through the planning portion of the SSA, the hon. Gentleman will realise that both sides will wish, if for no other reason than their economies, to improve and streamline the cost of inquiries.
The Minister confirmed that an increase in the standard daily amount would require the introduction of regulations in the House, subject to the negative resolution procedure. He added:
The Planning Inspectorate has proposed a draft service agreement with local authorities that aims to give them a minimum of 28 days notice of an increase in the standard daily amount. In practice, however, local authorities would expect to be given considerably longer notice because of the need for regulations that would spring from such an increase. That approach is therefore reasonable, particularly given the opportunity of the negative resolution procedure.


In response to an amendment that would have required the Government to consult local authority associations on the regulations, the Minister indicated that he accepted the principle of the amendment and undertook to abide by the contents of a statement of guidelines for central Government and local government regulations. He confirmed that
consultations about the regulations will take place when the Bill is enacted."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 May 1995; c. 10–15.]
7.45 pm
In defending the Bill, the Government have repeatedly argued that the costs that local planning authorities will face as a result of the inquiries are fully reflected in the local government funding mechanism, through the SSAs. In Committee, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) made the important point that this particular amount was not quantified in the SSAs. Given the way in which SSAs are constructed, it is not possible to prove whether individual items are reflected in them. That is particularly so with costs such as these, which are small in relation to local government expenditure as a whole and do not arise regularly in the case of individual authorities, but can pose a significant burden when they do.
As we know from both Second Reading and Committee, a large amount is currently being demanded from local government. That means that authorities need to be in a position to plan for the likely costs as far in advance as possible, and that any changes in the level of costs need to be linked with changes in the level of resources made available to local government through the SSAs and the revenue support grant regime. Specific consultation between Government and planning authorities on any increase is essential.
The amendment seeks to address those issues by limiting any increase in costs to no more than once a year, and requiring specific consultation on such an increase. We consider that, first, increases occurring more often than annually would not be acceptable; secondly, specific consultations with local authority associations should take place on any increase; and, thirdly, any increase should be no more than any increase in the real level of resources available to local authorities.

Mr. Bill Michie: Having spent many years in local government and having chaired a large Sheffield planning authority, I am acquainted with the problems that may arise long before a planning application is submitted or an inquiry begins. I know of the demands made on officers' and politicians' time, and I know that the public feel that they should have more say in the matter. We have always had such problems, and I suppose that we always will—unless we tidy up our act.
The amendment deals with the likely increases in the costs of public inquiries relating to, for instance, Sheffield's unitary development plan. Local authorities are, of course, instruments of government, and as such they do not make the rules or prepare the ground for such inquiries. In fact, unitary development plans are an idea of the Government's with which I do not disagree—I think they are a marvellous idea—but I hope that UDPs can be dealt with more sensibly in future. Changing the plans every three or five years is extraordinarily costly for taxpayers.
Local authority planning departments have a statutory obligation to carry out UDPs and public inquiries. That takes a long time, certainly in Sheffield—although most of the public are happy with the way in which the inquiry there has been conducted. Nevertheless the cost is astronomical. The ground rules on planning and inquiries are set by the Government and they should foot the bill. I hope that there is some agreement in the House on that.
Many people think that planning is boring but I find it fascinating. [Interruption.] I said planning: not family planning. It is a fascinating subject, but unless we get the system right, in two or three years' time someone will ask, "How did we get ourselves into this mess? Why was this built there? Why was it not built here?" The whole idea of unitary development plans is to try to make sure that that does not happen, but it costs local authorities an arm and a leg to embark on such exercises.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) spoke about the standard spending assessment, but that still leaves a shortfall for local authorities. Their planning departments are Cinderellas and are not looked upon as providing front-line services. I understand why much more emotion attaches to education and social services and care, but the correct implementation of planning regulations has a profound effect on the citizens whom we represent. Like all authorities, Sheffield city council is currently meeting the cost of the staff involvement although there is an element in the SSA to deal with that cost. Most people, however, would be surprised to hear the actual costs.
I have a note from my local authority in Sheffield that the accrued cost of the public inquiry for Sheffield's unitary development plan could be about £200,000. I am sure that the Minister will have something to say about that. That includes the cost of two inspectors—it is a large inquiry—which could total between £80,000 and £100,000. Obviously, a local authority has to take advice because of the importance of such an inquiry, and that involves banisters' costs of £90,000 plus. Is the Minister prepared to say how much barristers' fees have cost ratepayers or taxpayers for such inquiries nationally? I think that the figure would be horrific. For such projects there is also the programme officer's salary, office expenses and other inquiry running costs. I take a simple view.
I have no objection to inquiries. They are crucial, but I object to the fact that the Government do not fully understand the importance of having in planning authorities competent, highly skilled people who can deal with the democratic right of people to express their opinion. Obviously, the Government would have an influence, but local authorities should not be left with bills that they cannot afford. Like many local authorities Sheffield is still bound by its statutory duties, and is trying to do the best that it can with such inquiries even though it is under the Government's financial constraint. I hope that the Government will look more seriously at the cost to local authorities. They should be given the wherewithal to do a competent job and they should be allowed to do it without the fear that they may have to scrimp and save and not be able to do the job that they would like because of the costs that would have to be passed to their ratepayers.

Mr. William O'Brien: The Minister should consider carefully the amendment's principles and background. It asks that inquiry charges be increased no


more than once a year, and that any increase should be in line with the expenditure that is set by the Secretary of State for local authorities to provide services. If the Minister does not accept the principle of the amendment he should explain why he thinks the increase in inquiry charges should occur more than once a year.
On Thursday the Secretary of State for the Environment made it perfectly clear to the House that he accepted that local authorities were working on stringent budgets because of capping and that the standard spending assessments set by the Government are such that local authorities cannot provide for increases other than those that are set out in their budgets. That is, basically, the principle that lies behind the amendment. It is right that local authorities should have some assurances.
When we debated costs in Committee we challenged the Minister to deny that the Bill would impose a charge on local authorities for retrospective Government charges for planning inquiries. I said that that was totally unfair and unjust, but the Minister said that any payments that local authorities might be called upon to make for retrospective planning inquiries would be met or that the SSA would contain an element to meet that extra Government charge.
I wrote to the Minister asking him to outline how much he anticipates will be included in the SSA to cover the costs that will be charged to local authorities. He replied, which I appreciate, by saying that the SSAs for the coming year will be approximately £38,743 million and that 0.03 per cent. of that will be for planning costs. He said that that was included in a budget provision for other services. It is easy for the Minister to say that part of the other services element of the SSA will cover those costs, but in view of the make-up of the other services we must ask the Minister to explain further.
In the Minister's reply to me dated 20 June— yesterday—he highlighted the fact that the services in annexe H of an enclosed document included a number that were covered by the SSA. He listed them in the document, and planning implementation and control are included in that list. The only problem is that while non-metropolitan district councils and metropolitan county councils are covered, metropolitan district councils are not.
The Bill is a result of what happened in Birmingham, which has a metropolitan district council. Although the Minister addressed the points that I raised with him, his answer did not apply to the authorities about which I questioned him in Committee. Although the Minister gave some information about how he believes the SSA should be apportioned according to the formula, not all authorities are covered.
The Minister owes members of the Committee in particular, but the House in general, some explanation as to why he refers only to non-metropolitan district authorities and not to metropolitan district councils. Wakefield, the region where I am from, is involved. An account will be sent to it for retrospective payments for planning inquiries.
8 pm
If the Minister does not accept the amendment, the revised planning guidance that the Government are contemplating will mean further cuts in the consultation

period that takes place when a unitary development plan is offered for consultation to people in the communities. In Wakefield, the planning authority conducted an extensive consultation exercise. Its chairman and officers called public meetings in towns and villages and explained in full the purpose of the unitary development plan. If we decide to reduce the resources, they can be taken only in respect of the consultation period that planning authorities undertake to acquaint their communities with their plans for the next five or 10 years.
That is the course that the Department is embarking on with the revision of the planning guidance on statutory plans. It is wrong, and the Government would have to explain why they intend to take from communities their right to have planning procedures made clear and understood. If amendments are suggested by the public and communities, that is their right. It would be wrong for the Government to take that right away.
The cost element is attached to inspectors and inspectors' services that apply to local authorities. The Wakefield authority carried out its exercise in accordance with the Government's directives. The problem with the unitary development procedure in relation to Wakefield was the length of time that it took for the inspector to present the report and the fact that there was the unexpected element of the inquiry. In Committee, the Minister said that he agreed with Opposition Members that the procedure of the inspector carrying out his exercise in the community and presenting the report would have to be speeded up. Will we be given the additional assurance that the waiting time for an inspector's report will be reduced and that the inspector will be more specific about when he will attend the public inquiry and invite people to present their observations and comments? Will the Minister give an assurance that, if people promise to attend a public inquiry and fail to do so, any charge on the local authority should be met by those people if the reason for not attending was not justified?
Tonight, the Minister will have to answer a number of questions. This is the last opportunity that we have to press the Minister to do something to ensure that local authorities will not again be charged for services other than those included in the SSA or the capping criteria that are set by the Secretary of State for the Environment. If the Minister believes that planning is important, if he considers that communities have the right to examine proposals that affect, in many instances, their destiny in the form of development of industrial and residential estates, if he believes that communities and local authorities have the right to examine those plans, to choose and to make representations on proposals in a unitary development plan, and that people have a universal right to make representations, the only way that he can be fair and offer any real assurances is to accept the amendment. That would give local authorities the comfort of knowing that, when their budgets are set and provision is made in the planning budget for a public inquiry, that charge will not increase.
We want to have—last time we argued that this was possible—a service agreement, but such an agreement is not there. We want some assurances from the Minister, as outlined in the amendment, that charges will be made no more than once a year and that they will be in line with a local authority's budget provisions.

Dr. Lynne Jones: The amendment is designed to exert some constraints over the Planning Inspectorate and the frequency with which it demands an increase in its


charges and the level of those increases. I am not sure why it refers only to subsection (5A), but it is an example of what needs to be done.
That this amendment is necessary is demonstrated by the behaviour of the Planning Inspectorate, presumably acting with the agreement of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Between June 1989 and September 1991, the charges for development plan inquiries increased by more than 170 per cent. In Committee, the Minister had an opportunity to comment on and justify that scale of increase in charges, but he declined to do so; perhaps tonight he will take the opportunity to comment, particularly as I understand that it is proposed to increase the current charge of £285 a day for planning inspector services by 19 per cent.
The fact that the charges are not based on any rational assessment of actual costs is demonstrated by the fact that charges for development plan inquiries differ substantially. At one time, there was a difference of between £350 a day and £285 a day. That has never been justified. The Minister declined to comment on that discrepancy or to give any assurances about how the Department's administrative overheads, which can be charged, would be justified.
It is thanks to Birmingham city council that this legislation is before us. Under the proposals in the service level agreement, which is a step forward, there will at least be 28-day notification of an increase in charges. That is an improvement. Last time they were increased, notification went out on 12 September for charges that were to be increased on 1 September. Birmingham city council is to be congratulated on its final decision to consider such charges when its original estimate of £28,000 for its development plan ended with a demand for a £63,000 payment—almost three times the original assessment.
I hope that the Minister will respond to those arguments. What is being proposed is a step forward, and Birmingham city council should be congratulated on that. I welcome the fact that the negative resolution procedure may delay the 28 days even longer. However, we still need to hear a justification for charges being increased more frequently than once a year. I cannot understand why the Government will not accept our reasonable amendment.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I shall ask one question in support of the amendment. Money is finite in the local authority sector, as I am sure the Minister will agree. The Select Committee on the Environment heard only last week that, if community care costs are taken out of the local government equation, the Department envisages a reduction of 6.3 per cent. in real terms over the next three years.
As money is finite, I must ask the Minister a question that the Sheffield city solicitor raised with me. Is not such an increase in costs, and such uncertainty over the planning budget for financing planning appeals, likely to make an authority even more wary about taking important enforcement action over serious environmental issues?
As the Minister will know from the deliberations on the Environment Bill that have been taking place over the past few months, local authorities are being asked to take on many more responsibilities in connection with important matters of which there is a growing public awareness, and to take enforcement action on environmental issues. Such increases in costs will create more pressure, especially on local authorities that develop

a careful budget plan to allow for them, and they will therefore have no room left for unexpected, although possibly very important, legal action that may be necessary when there are serious violations of environmental standards in their areas.
For those reasons, I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response to our important amendment.

Mr. George Stevenson: As my hon. Friends have said, the amendment seeks to restrict the Government's undoubted ability and intention to increase the standard daily amount so that that can be done only once a year. I could not help wondering what the Government's attitude would be if the roles were reversed. If local authorities sought to impose charges on the Government as and when they wanted, what would the Government's reaction be? If a local authority said, "We want to change the cost of collecting your business rate every month or so," the Government's reaction would be—

Mr. Bill Michie: Shock, horror.

Mr. Stevenson: —as my hon. Friend suggests, shock, horror.
I suspect, in fact I know, that the Government would say, "You can't do that." If local authorities were legally entitled to do it we would see a phalanx of Ministers on the Government Front Bench pressing us to change the law to stop those awful authorities. That would undoubtedly happen if the roles were reversed, so why do the Government find our reasonable amendment, which is consistent with their philosophy of effectiveness, efficiency and controlling costs, so horrid? Why do they recoil from it?

Mr. Michie: They had not thought of it.

Mr. Stevenson: They have not thought about any of this.
8.15 pm
We must dig deeper, and consider what the standard daily amounts are. They represent all the administrative costs, both direct and indirect, of the public inquiry. When we pressed the Under-Secretary of State in Committee about what the costs might be, we were all impressed by his silence—because silence was what we got. All that we could interpret from that silence was that he did not know, and I suspect that that is his motive for rejecting the amendment. Not only has he no faith in his ability to control costs, but he does not know what the costs would be even if he had. He could not tell us in Committee, and I suspect that he cannot tell us now.
What did the Minister tell us in Committee about the costs? He told us that they included "general overhead costs", whatever they might be—that phrase covers a multitude of sins. He said, "Don't worry, trust us. We are okay; we are a good bunch of people." Then he said:
There will, however, be a daily charge that will be notified to the planning authority before the inquiry begins.
That is an interesting statement. When will that notification take place—a day in advance, two days, a week, a month, six months, or even 28 days? I do not know. I have looked through the Hansard report of the Committee sitting and I cannot find any trace of any information.
The Minister continued:
That will mean that the council will be able to budget for the anticipated costs of the inquiry and of the report by reference to the numbers of inquiry days, plus the number of subsequent reporting


days. Thus, the total anticipated charge can be known and calculated in advance by the planning authority."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 May 1995; c. 10.]
The unfortunate fact is that the planning authority may be engaged in several planning inquiries in one year. Are we to accept the underlying philosophy and logic behind what the Minister says—that the planning authority will be engaged in only one planning inquiry in a year? We all know that that is nonsense, and that authorities are often engaged in several inquiries in the same year.
The Under-Secretary told us that the costs would be identified and contained in standard spending assessments. But how can we reconcile the fact that standard spending assessments are compiled only once a year with the fact that planning authorities will know what costs are to be imposed on them as standard daily amounts and other general costs at some unidentified unspecified date before each planning inquiry? That is what the hon. Gentleman said.
If the hon. Gentleman continues that alarming logic this evening we are entitled to ask him for an assurance that he will not increase those charges between planning inquiries, so that planning authorities have to jump through the hoop every time there is a planning inquiry and compile another budget. If the Under-Secretary continues to insist that the Minister will have the authority to change the standard daily charge almost at will, without consulting local authorities, the danger is that that charge will be amended—that is, increased—more than once a year. Unless he can assure us that that will not happen, he cannot duck the logic behind his own statement.
If local planning authorities are going to be advised what their charges will be before every local inquiry, when will they be advised? What will those charges be and will the Minister assure us that those charges will not be changed between one inquiry and another? If he will not give that assurance, it will make nonsense of the assurances that he tried to give in Committee and of the proposition—already a weak one in respect of this Government—that we should trust him and the Government.
We are seeking to get a working relationship in the light of court cases and everything else that has led to the changes that the Government are proposing. I put it to the Minister: is it reasonable, given his days as a local authority member, that local authorities will like the prospect of some Minister cloistered in Whitehall telling them what their costs are going to be every time there is a planning inquiry and that they may be changed every time there is an inquiry? Is that the sort of basis on which Government and local authorities should operate in a very important aspect of Government and local authority activity?
As my hon. Friends have said, planning inquiries affect everyone's life in some way, shape or form. Are the Government's proposals a reasonable basis for those activities? I put it to the Government, as we did in Committee, that they are not. They have no logic and simply say that the Government will hold all the aces and that local authorities will have to like it or lump it. That is not the basis on which such activities should be conducted.

Mr. Bill Michie: My hon. Friend touches on a theme with which I totally agree. It seems to me that the Government, for some arbitrary reason, put a value on

what they think each planning inquiry is worth. That could be a bit of a problem because if the Government of the day do not like a particular inquiry or are not bothered about whether the local authority wins, loses or whatever, they can make sure that there is not adequate finance to deal with that inquiry. It is a bit dodgy if, before the inquiry starts, there is a judgment of the value of it being done properly.

Mr. Stevenson: I agree with my hon. Friend. In the light of the Government's intransigence in the matter, the amendment seeks to find a middle way. They will not tell us in any detail what the costs are likely to be. They have extended the scope of the costs because the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which the Bill seeks to amend, referred only to recoverable costs covering remuneration and allowances. The Bill covers the entire administration costs of and incidental to the qualifying inquiry. There is a world of difference. Despite our arguments, the Minister did not seem to understand that. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) made an extremely valid point.
In conclusion, the Minister and, indeed, the whole army of Government Ministers, continually claim that their intention is to make local and national government speedier, more efficient and more effective. Apart from the mechanisms used to achieve them, most of us would concur with such goals as being consistent with good government. The Government have always claimed that they give higher levels of service. We have citizens charters coming out of our earholes. We seem to get one every day. We have more citizens charters than crises, which is saying something.
In the circumstances that the amendment seeks to address, we are asking the Government to demonstrate their commitments. We are asking the Government to restrict their ability to change the charges to once a year. I do not know any hon. Member who would find that unreasonable. Rejection by the Government of the amendment would clearly imply that they are not confident of their ability to control costs and that they are not in charge of their civil servants or Departments. It is the same logic that has been applied year in, year out, to local authorities by the Government. It is an easy way out for the Government simply to pass the costs on to local authorities and, under the Bill, to do so almost willy-nilly. For those reasons, hon. Members should accept the amendment.

Sir Paul Beresford: Of all hon. Members with local government experience, I should have thought that I would be the one who wants to squeeze local government expenditure and to understand the point that Opposition Members are making about that. I appreciate and understand that Labour Members want to limit the frequency with which the prescribed standard daily amount can be changed. That is plainly sensible from the point of view of the local authority budgetary process and the annual local government financial settlement.
If I may pause for a moment, I shall answer the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who, I am sorry to say, obviously did not understand. He says that the planning provisions of standard spending assessments do not relate to metropolitan districts such as Birmingham. He has misunderstood the annexe that I sent to him. Planning control and planning implementation are taken into account for shire districts, metropolitan districts and


London boroughs. The reference in the annexe to the non-metropolitan districts was merely to classify the services provided by counties in shire areas and those provided by districts in shire areas. Outside the shire areas, the metropolitan districts and London boroughs provide both county and shire district services. Their SSAs therefore cover all the other services in annexe H.

Mr. William O'Brien: Is the Minister dealing with annexe H, which he sent me, or using details given to him since I raised the matter by civil servants in the Box? If he is not dealing with annexe H, he is not being fair with the House.

Sir Paul Beresford: I am explaining something that I should have thought that someone who has, in the past, taken part in local government, would have understood. I am explaining, effectively, annexe H.
If the Bill is enacted, the calculation of the standard daily amount will be my Department's responsibility. In practice, the amount of the charge will depend on the Planning Inspectorate's year-on-year cost in providing inspectors to hold development plan inquiries. The inspectorate also budgets on an annual basis, although its budgets relate to the financial year, not the calendar year. We do not expect the charges to be reassessed more than once in any particular annual period.
It is probably worth reminding hon. Members that the cost and figures given sound large, but, put as a proportion, they are not; the proportion of council expenditure is only 0.03 per cent. I shall give one specific example—one of the favourite boroughs of Labour Members. Wandsworth borough's unitary development plan inquiry opened on 2 March 1993, lasted 23 days and had an additional four site visit days. It closed on 13 March 1993. The total bill was just under £52,000. That is in a total gross budget, if I remember correctly, of nearly £500 million. The balances that the local authorities are required to set aside by the auditor would more than cover the charges that Labour Members are trying to exaggerate.
Of course, my Department and the local authorities have a common interest in minimising the frequency with which charges are altered. In any event, there will be the additional discipline of having to justify any proposed increase to Parliament when the necessary subordinate legislation is introduced.
We also had a proposal for a consultation requirement. I explained in Standing Committee that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed last November with representatives of the local authority associations a statement of guidelines for central and local government relations. Paragraph (d)(4) of the guidelines includes provision for consultation about relevant financial issues. My Department will follow those guidelines in consulting about proposed increases in charges to be introduced in future by these regulations. The amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Vaz: We have had an extraordinary reply from the Minister. If he believes that it is reasonable that local authorities should be consulted and if he thinks that it is unnecessary to increase charges more than once annually, there is no reason why he cannot accept the amendment so that such provisions are written into the Bill. The reason why my hon. Friends will not accept assurances given by Ministers is, frankly, that they are not worth the

Hansards they are written in simply because so many of the assurances given by Ministers are changed by subsequent Ministers.
8.30 pm
We believe that the amendment represents a reasonable way out for the Government. It provides for consultation with local authorities; the Minister says that he is in favour of consultation. A meeting took place with the Prime Minister last year. There is no reason why that consultation should not be written into the Bill. There is also no reason why we should not be clear about the matter at this stage.
The Bill was introduced to make matters concerning the cost of inquiries as clear and precise as possible. Here is an opportunity to ensure that the Bill is clear and precise. We will, therefore, press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 194.

Division No. 169]
[8.30 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Fyfe, Maria


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Galbraith, Sam


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gapes, Mike


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce


Austin-Walker, John
Gerrard, Neil


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Barnes, Harry
Godsiff, Roger


Bayley, Hugh
Gordon, Mildred


Beirth, Rt Hon A J
Graham, Thomas


Bennett, Andrew F
Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)


Benton, Joe
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Betts, Clive
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Boateng, Paul
Grocott, Bruce


Bradley, Keith
Gunnell, John


Burden, Richard
Hall, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Hanson, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harvey, Nick


Canavan, Dennis
Heppell, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Chidgey, David
Hinchliffe, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoey, Kate


Clapham, Michael
Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David
Hood, Jimmy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Coffey, Ann
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Ingram, Adam


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)


Corston, Jean
Jamieson, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Denham, John
Keen, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Khabra, Piara S


Dixon, Don
Kilfoyle, Peter


Donohoe, Brian H
Kirkwood, Archy


Dowd, Jim
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lewis, Terry


Eagle, Ms Angela
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Eastham, Ken
Loyden, Eddie


Enright, Derek
Lynne, Ms Liz


Etherington, Bill
McAllion, John


Fatchett, Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Flynn, Paul
McCartney, Ian


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Foster, Don (Bath)
McWilliam, John


Foulkes, George
Madden, Max






Maddock, Diana
Reid, Dr John


Mahon, Alice
Rendel, David


Marek, Dr John
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Rooney, Terry


Martlew, Eric
Simpson, Alan


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michael, Alun
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll  Bute)
Steinberg, Gerry


Milburn, Alan
Stevenson, George


Morgan, Rhodri
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Tipping, Paddy


Mowlam, Marjorie
Touhig, Don


Mudie, George
Turner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Tyler, Paul


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Wareing, Robert N


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Watson, Mike


O'Hara, Edward
Wicks, Malcolm


Olner, Bill
Wilson, Brian


Parry, Robert
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter L
Wise, Audrey


Pope, Greg
Worthington, Tony


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wright Dr Tony


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Quin, Ms Joyce
Mr. Stephen Byers and


Radice, Giles
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Devlin, Tim


Ashby, David
Dicks, Terry


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Nicholas(North Dorset)
Dover, Den


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Duncan, Alan


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bates, Michael
Dykes, Hugh


Batiste, Spencer
Elletson, Harold


Bellingham, Henry
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Nigel (Ribbie Valley)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Evennett, David


Bowis, John
Faber, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Fabricant, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Reid, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bright, Sir Graham
Fishburn, Dudley


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forman, Nigel


Brown, M (Brigg  Cl'thorpes)
Forsylh, Rt Hon Michael (Stilling)


Burns, Simon
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Burt, Alistair
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butcher, John
Fry, Sir Peter


Butler, Peter
Gallie, Phil


Carrington, Matthew
Gardiner, Sir George


Carttiss, Michael
Gillan, Cheryl


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Gorst, Sir John


Clappison, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Coe, Sebastian
Hague, William


Congdon, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Conway, Derek
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hannam, Sir John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Harris, David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Couchman, James
Hawksley, Warren


Cran, James
Hayes, Jerry





Heald, Oliver
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Powell, William (Corby)


Hendry, Charles
Richards, Rod


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Riddick, Graham


Horam, John
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hunter, Andrew
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jack, Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jenkin, Bernard
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jessel, Toby
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Sims, Roger


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Spencer, Sir Derek


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spink, Dr Robert


Knapman, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Stephen, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Stem, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Stewart, Allan


Lait,Mrs Jacqui
Streeter, Gary


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sweeney, Walter


Legg, Barry
Sykes, John


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lidington, David
Thomason, Roy


Lightbown, David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Luff, Peter
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


MacKay, Andrew
Thumham, Peter


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Madel, Sir David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maitland, Lady Olga
Viggers, Peter


Major, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Malone, Gerald
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Mans, Keith
Waller, Gary


Marlow, Tony
Ward, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Waterson, Nigel


Merchant, Piers
Wells, Bowen


Mills, Iain
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Whittingdale, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Widdecombe, Ann


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Moss, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Nelson, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Arm (Congleton)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wolfson, Mark


Nicholls, Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley



Pawsey, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Dr. Liam Fox and


Pickles, Eric
Mr. David Willetts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 5

SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION, FINANCIAL PROVISION, AND EXTENT

Mr. Vaz: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 12, line 20, at end insert—
'(1A) This Act, except for sections 2 and 4, shall come into force at the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which it is passed, or on such earlier day as the Secretary of State may by order specify.
(1B) Sections 2 and 4 of this Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order specify.


(1C) Any power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and no order shall be made under subsection (1B) above unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
Before I speak to the amendment, may I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on receiving a knighthood from Her Majesty the Queen? Not only did that bring a great deal of joy to hon. Members of all parties, but I am quite certain that the citizens of Pontefract and Castleford were equally delighted at the honour.
The amendment would delay the coming into force of clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill, which deal with retrospection, until they have been approved through the affirmative resolution procedure of the House. The matter of retrospection has been addressed during the passage of the Bill, but the Minister has yet to give a satisfactory answer to the grave concerns raised not only by members of the Committee but by other hon. Members on Second Reading.
In Committee, the Minister argued that the Bill's provisions would not lead to true retrospection, for three reasons: first, because the clause would
simply validate past payments that authorities made in good faith at the time of payment, believing that they had been sought and paid for lawfully since 1968.
Secondly, he said:
provision has been made in past annual local government finance settlements for the estimated expenditure that planning authorities expected to incur by way of charges for inspector's services at planning inquiries.
Thirdly, he added:
Without retrospection, the other provisions in the Bill would be unfair to those planning authorities that, through no fault of their own, have not yet reached the stage of holding an inquiry as part of their development plan process.
The Minister also advanced those three reasons on Second Reading.
One major concern for local planning authorities is a conviction that the Government would not have been as flexible in dealing with them in similar circumstances had the change occurred in relation to local government's execution of its own powers. One can imagine what would happen if a local authority acted unlawfully, in exactly the same way that the Government have acted over the past 20 years in dealing with the costs of inquiries. Ministers would be up in arms, and they would be rushing to the Dispatch Box and going on to "News at Ten" demanding to know why local authorities had acted in such a way.
When Birmingham city council decided that there was a loophole in the law, no apology was given by Ministers. Indeed, the chief executive and members of Birmingham city council were not thanked. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and her colleagues who represent the city of Birmingham for having encouraged the local authority to do what it has done. Had it not been for Birmingham city council probing the legality of what the Government had been doing over the past few years, we would not have this Bill or, indeed, be discussing it at this stage.
The point that the deletion of retrospective provisions would be unfair to local authorities was raised at length by the Minister in Committee. The logic behind the Minister's argument was that it would be unfair to local authorities in the second tranche—those holding inquiries

after the matter was raised by Birmingham city council and after the consultation procedure began. I have written, as have other Opposition Members, to local authorities. We have consulted various organisations, including the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils, and not one of the constituent parts of those local authority associations would—

Sir Paul Beresford: They are Labour-controlled.

Mr. Vaz: I am glad that the Minister raises the point that they are Labour-controlled. Indeed, one of them has become Labour-controlled during the passage of the Bill simply because of the attitude expressed by the Government. It is no wonder that they all want to vote Labour. The Government are prepared to act unlawfully and to charge local authorities for doing something for which the Government have no power to charge them, as the Bill proposes. That is why the associations, representing Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour authorities as part of their constituent membership, have written unanimously to condemn what the Government propose.
8.45 pm
There is also concern about the wide-ranging nature of the retrospection proposed. Subsections (4) and (5) of clause 2 apply the concept of standard daily amounts to inquiries covered by retrospective powers. Subsection (6), however, goes one stage further by providing that if no standard daily rate was applicable to the inquiry in question, whatever charge the Minister considered reasonable would be levied. The provision goes beyond the original intention of the Bill, which was to provide merely for validating payments that have already been made.
Justifying this extraordinary provision in Committee, the Minister said:
The inspectors' charges that can be recovered retrospectively will, like current charges, normally be based on a standard daily amount. Nevertheless, to ensure that every possible eventuality is catered for, subsection (6) is included, in case it is found that no standard daily rate amount was applicable at the time of a particular inquiry. If, most unexpectedly, the Planning Inspectorate had to use the powers of subsection (6) to decide what amount it was reasonable in all circumstances to recover from the planning authority, inspectorate officials would provide that authority with a complete analysis of the sum due and an explanation of why it was considered reasonable to recover it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 May 1995; c. 26–27.]
Surely the Minister must accept that that is taking the principle of retrospection to its absolute limits. He is asking the House to grant him the power to decide what amount to recover in any possible eventuality, which he does not even expect will arise. Given his view that the clause is unlikely to be required, he is seeking the House's agreement to stretch retrospection to a limit never intended by any other piece of legislation that I have studied during the passage of the Bill.
If the Minister proceeds with the Bill without the amendment, I hope that he will at some stage table an amendment setting out his commitment to ensuring that if the clause were used, the planning authority concerned would be supplied with a complete analysis of the sum due and an explanation of why it was considered reasonable, together with an opportunity to challenge the figure arrived at.
In other amendments, the Opposition have pressed for full consideration of the regulations to be made under the Bill and for the introduction of a service level agreement. As we know from the previous debate, the Minister has been as positive as he can, given the circumstances. At the very least, this amendment would provide the opportunity for the House to satisfy itself that the commitments were fulfilled and that, crucially, before any steps were taken, the provisions of the Bill would not apply retrospectively.
The Minister has said that he has gone out to consultation and that meetings have taken place with the Prime Minister. Indeed, that consultation started more than a year ago. The Minister must understand from my hon. Friends' contributions that retrospection is crucial to the future progress of good relations between the Government and local authorities. If, as a result of the McCarthy and Stone Developments case and the probing nature of the inquiry conducted by Birmingham city council, we accept that a mistake was made, the Minister should stand at the Dispatch Box and say that a mistake was made, apologise for it and say that, in future, any inquiries would be the subject of charging. Everyone in local government would accept that. That is what local authorities would be expected to do in the same circumstances.
If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, the Opposition will certainly push it to a Division.

Mr. William O'Brien: I must remind the Minister that when we discussed retrospection in Committee, he defended it, but when we were considering retrospective legislation in Committee on another Bill on which the Minister was leading, he defended the right not to introduce such retrospective legislation. If there is a political weathercock in the House, it is the Minister, because whichever way the wind blows, that is the way he faces.
The fact that the Minister's own Back Benchers criticised proposals for retrospective legislation in the Committee on that other Bill prompts me to remind those Tory Back Benchers and the Minister that, today, the Minister is arguing the contrary to his previously stated opinion by arguing in favour of retrospective legislation.
Everyone knows that retrospective legislation is dangerous. It leaves open the opportunity for Ministers to introduce legislation that can create penalties for something that happened in the past. That is the dangerous purpose of the Bill. The Minister should consider carefully before he proceeds with the Bill.
The amendment would at least give local authorities the opportunity to offer an input to the representations to the Secretary of State regarding the level of retrospective payments. If the Minister pursues the line of thought that he exposed in Committee—as he has done so far tonight—he should press the Secretary of State to lift the cap from local authorities. If those authorities are to be charged for payments over and above their budget provisions, those charges could best be met by lifting that cap. The Minister may shake his head at that suggestion, but many of his hon. Friends on the Back Benches are saying exactly the same thing—unfortunately, not tonight. In fact, there are more civil servants in the Box than there are Tory Members on the Back Benches. That is glaringly

obvious. It is true, nevertheless, that many Tory Members are now arguing that the capping mechanism on the expenditure of local authorities, which has operated for so long, should be lifted by the Government. If that happened, local authorities would obviously be more able to meet the demands that the Minister is making of them.
The amendment would ensure that any future charges would have to be subject to the affirmative resolution of the House before they were imposed. That would enable hon. Members to question the Minister and offer their views on his proposals to charge local authorities retrospective payments for matters that were not those authorities' responsibility in the first place. The initial mistake was made by the Government, whose charges on authorities were illegal from the start. That is why the Bill is before the House.
In Committee, the Minister reminded us that he had served in local government. If he wants to gain any credit from local government and wants to demonstrate his affiliation to it, he should show some respect for the pleas from the Opposition to help local government. Our amendment would return to local government some of the credibility that the Government have taken away from it and will continue to take from it through the Bill.
The amendment is constructive and would benefit local authorities that will be charged for retrospective payments. If the Minister has any affiliation to local government, he should accept the amendment.

Mr. Bendel: I join the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) in congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your recent success in the birthday honours list.
There is a difference between retrospective legislation about which people are warned in advance—that might sound like a rather strange concept, but it applies to an extent in this case—and genuine retrospective legislation, which applies to people who could not have known what was happening.
It is sometimes admissible, although not necessarily in this case, for a Government to announce that they are about to legislate and that that will apply from the date of announcement forward. That can happen, of course, during the Budget debates. But it is quite wrong for the Government to attempt to legislate, as they have done in this case, where authorities whose inquiries had taken place had the right to believe that the Government did not have any legislation in place, which allowed them to be charged for the cost of those inquiries.
The fact that there are authorities that will have to pay if the Bill goes through as it stands—at a time when they have every right to assume that they will not have to pay—shows what is clearly wrong with the retrospective aspects of the Bill. That is why I, and I hope the members of my party, will support the amendment.

9 pm

Mr. Stevenson: May I add my congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Of all the concerns that we have about the Government's proposals, this part of the Bill is the one that causes us the most concern. It is potentially the most dangerous part of the Bill, because it concerns the whole aspect of retrospection. By introducing the legislation in this way, the Government have acknowledged per se that


they were acting illegally and that they have had no statutory authority to operate the scheme which has been in place for the past two or three years.
We are now faced with retrospective legislation, which is dangerous and puts us on a slippery slope. My hon. Friends have made that point both here and in Committee, and it is worth underlining this evening. We were unable to convince the Minister in Committee, and perhaps we will not be able to convince him now. But I am sure that he would not want to go down in history as the Minister who started us down this slippery slope.
It is interesting to note the Government's attitude towards retrospection in the Bill, an issue that the amendment seeks to address. If a private sector firm with which the Government were in some way involved—a privatised industry, for example—had made mistakes, Ministers would come to the Dispatch Box to admit that mistakes had been made, but would say that the Government had catered for those mistakes and, in some cases, had written them off.
If a local authority makes mistakes, heaven help it. It will have a phalanx of Ministers dropping on it from a great height. Minister after Minister—and, no doubt, Conservative Members—would be standing in line to condemn the local authority for its mistakes, and the Government would make the authority pay for those mistakes. But when the Government made mistakes—as was clearly established in the court action—what happened?

Sir Paul Beresford: The private Member's Bill which preceded the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 and which was supported by the Government had a retrospective aspect. The Act deals with local authorities which have paid moneys which are later suspected to be illegal. That matter was covered in the Bill by a retrospective measure.

Mr. Stevenson: I am glad that, after three minutes of my speech, I have apparently converted the Minister to the point that we want to make. I am extremely grateful for that intervention, because I cannot remember such a reaction from the Minister during all the hours we spent in Committee on this important point. I am extremely grateful for that intervention, as it encourages me to make some further points.
The Government made mistakes—I do not want to make a great song and dance about it, but they were acting illegally. What do the Government intend to do about that? They have made mistakes, and they had no statutory basis for operating the scheme. But they will now use their retrospective powers to load the financial responsibility on to the local authorities, which have been completely innocent. The justification for the Government's intentions to put the burden of costs on others as a result of their own mistakes is very interesting.
I should like to get the Minister to clarify what he means by retrospection. In Committee, he said that we did not have to worry, as this was not true retrospection. If it is not true retrospection, it is presumably untrue retrospection. If it is not full-blown, both-barrelled retrospection, it is presumably half-cocked and single-barrelled. Which is it? The Minister later tried to explain what he meant, but what he said does not stand up to scrutiny.
In 1992, the Government were challenged successfully on the basis of charging. The Minister is now basing the need for retrospection on two basic precepts. The first is that planning authorities will have no new financial burdens as a result of retrospection. I do not believe that that is the case, and I do not believe that the Minister really accepts it, either. The Bill seeks to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which laid down local authority charges. It extends the scope of those charges, and I argue strongly that a Bill which extends the scope of charging is bound to increase charges for local authorities.
Unless the Minister is prepared to state categorically this evening that the Government do not intend to extend the scope of charges beyond those laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, his claim that retrospection is not a problem because it will not amount to an additional financial burden cannot be sustained. It will not stand up to scrutiny.
The Minister's second justification for retrospection would be greeted, if the House were full, with a mixture of laughter and amazement.

Sir Paul Beresford: They would not believe you.

Mr. Stevenson: In reply to the Minister's sedentary intervention, hon. Members would not need to believe me, because they are the Minister's words, not mine. He said that the Government are seeking retrospection because they do not want to be unfair to local authorities. The Minister is unique among his colleagues in holding that view. Of the army of Ministers who are masquerading under the collective term "Government", you are the only Minister who does not want to be unfair to local authorities, and I congratulate you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) has already congratulated me once; I think that he is referring to the Minister.

Mr. Stevenson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is the only Minister who does not want to be unfair to local authorities, and I agree with him.
The local authorities are telling the Minister that they do not want retrospection. When my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) spoke earlier about local government organisations, such as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, I heard the Minister say from a sedentary position, "Labour-controlled." I hope that that was a throwaway remark, and that the Minister is not arguing—even from a sedentary position—that sound and reasonable views expressed by Labour-controlled authorities will be discounted simply because they come from authorities which have a majority of Labour members. If that is the case, retrospection will be even more dangerous. I am sure that it was only a throwaway line, but it is concerning.
Local authorities, such as the AMA and other associations, have said that they do not want retrospection; but now they are okay. Everyone accepts that action must be taken to clarify the position, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East said, we must start with a clean sheet. We can then move forward from there.
That is an extremely reasonable suggestion. Our amendment is trying at the very least to delay retrospection, so that it can be given further thought and


so that any action taken on retrospective legislation will be subject to the affirmative resolution of the House. That is exactly the right thing to do. I can see now the queue of local authorities outside the Minister's office, banging on his door and shouting, "We want retrospection."

Sir Paul Beresford: indicated dissent.

Mr. Stevenson: It is no good the Minister shaking his head, because those are the very words that he used. He said that local authorities do not want it. Now he says that they are okay and tells us not to worry; but where is the queue?
I should like to know where my own local authority, Stoke-on-Trent city council, is in the queue. Is it second, third, hundredth or fiftieth? Where is it? I have checked: it is not in the queue. It does not want retrospection, and 1 have been unable to find a local authority that does.
I believe that, when the Minister gives as a justification for retrospection—a dangerous thing to do—the fact that local authorities are queueing up, banging on his door, saying that they want it because they do not want to be treated unfairly, it is right and proper for the House to say to the Minister, "Prove it!" He did not prove it in Committee, because he was silent on the matter. I hope that he will prove it this evening. I believe that it is not happening—and that the Minister knows that it is not happening.
Two planks support the Minister's justification for retrospection. The first plank, that there will be no additional financial burden, is simply not true. The legislation extends the scope of the 1990 Act, and there will be an additional financial burden unless we can obtain a commitment from the Minister this evening. The second plank that holds up that very wonky proposal for retrospection is that local authorities do not want to be treated unfairly.
In Committee, the Minister did not justify those two arguments. It is fair that he should take the opportunity to justify them this evening. If he cannot, all right hon. and hon. Members should support the amendment.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I shall be brief. I do not wish to repeat comments about retrospection. However, I wish to continue the argument about being fair to local authorities. The reason why we are here today, the reason why the Government have been forced to introduce the legislation, is that the Government were being precisely that—unfair to local authorities.
When Birmingham city council received a bill for £63,000 in charges for the Planning Inspectorate carrying out the development inquiry, it was not happy. Originally, the budget for that purpose was £28,000. The council, being realistic, had realised that the inquiry had sat for a few days longer and had slightly upped its estimate, but it was a shock to receive a bill for more than twice the original estimate.
The Minister dismisses that by saying, "It is such a small proportion of total local government expenditure." However, expenditure of that magnitude on other items has never prevented Conservative Members from unjustifiably smearing local authorities such as Birmingham. That money is important to local government. It should take its own decision on the way in which it spends its money, and should not be subjected

to unreasonable demands for costs from central Government—which I note, even at this late stage, the Government have yet to justify.
The Minister is silent on the reason for increases of that enormous order of magnitude—170 per cent., in slightly more than two years. That is completely unreasonable, yet the Government smear local authorities such as Birmingham city council, which has shown, in this instance, that it is there to protect the interests of its citizens.
It is about time the Government apologised for the way in which they smear councils such as Birmingham. The Prime Minister did it today. It is about time the Government congratulated Birmingham city council on the work it did to draw that issue out.
As we know, the issue also rests on the legal case of McCarthy and Stone Developments Ltd. v. Richmond upon Thames London borough council, but we note that the Government have not rushed out to protect that local authority or other local authorities which were unable to make what they considered to be realistic charges for costs that they have incurred.
This is yet another example of the Government expecting local authorities to behave in one way and behaving themselves in a completely different way. The Government say that the amounts are not important in relation to the totality of local government expenditure; the costs that the Government intend to recoup from the retrospective nature of this legislation are also small in relation to the totality of Government expenditure. The Government should be consistent.
It is about time the Minister congratulated Birmingham council. It would be good if he recognised the work that was done; it would also be good if, instead of relying on their majority to beat through whatever legislation they want, retrospective or otherwise, the Government listened to the arguments and realised that they were behaving unreasonably.
It is laughable to suggest that the Government are doing this to be fair to local government. I urge the Minister to consider the points made tonight, and to think again.

Sir Paul Beresford: I add my congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your knighthood. It is a considerable honour—may we join the party afterwards? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Labour party?"] No, I have made some subtle mistakes in my time, but that would be a fatal one.
We need to re-emphasise, apparently, the fact that these provisions validate past payments that local authorities made in good faith to my Department. The payments were made under legislation based on legislation enacted under the Labour Government—that is when the error was made. It was believed by all concerned and by the local authorities that the payments were lawfully sought and lawfully paid at the time.
This is not a case of imposing an additional burden on any authority, or of expecting authorities to find the sums involved without having had warning of what they would he required to pay. There are no surprises—

Mr. Stevenson: The Minister says that no additional burden is proposed for local authorities. Does he accept that the scope of charges under the Bill is far wider than


the scope contained in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990? If he confirms that, how can he argue that there is no additional financial burden?

Sir Paul Beresford: The powers that will be used by the planning inspector will involve only payments that have already been made by the planning authorities or which they have been notified are due from them—we are not asking for other payments. As I said, there are no surprises. We do not expect local authorities to find additional sums that they have not been warned about. They understand that, and they have not gone to any lengths to seek repayments which they anticipated having to repay later to the Planning Inspectorate. If the Bill were not retrospective, my Department and local authorities would be faced with a minor bureaucratic nightmare.

Mr. Vaz: No.

Sir Paul Beresford: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should think again and delve into his knowledge of local authorities and planning law—

Mr. Vaz: rose—

Sir Paul Beresford: I want to finish. If he thinks about it, the hon. Gentleman will realise that it would indeed be a minor bureaucratic nightmare. Authorities would have to establish what was owed in repayments—

Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister give way?

Sir Paul Beresford: No. Moreover, there would have to be a retrospective readjustment in the SSA provision paid through the revenue support grant to local authorities over the past few years.
This is a short Bill. It has a clearly defined and limited purpose for England, Wales and Scotland. All the provisions in clauses 1 to 4 have been thoroughly considered at each stage of the Bill's progress. Consequently, I see no need to interpose a further delaying parliamentary process before any of the provisions in clauses 1 to 4 come into force. That would introduce an additional element of uncertainty into the timetable for resumption of the charging arrangements for inspectors and reporters' services.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) asked about the timetable for reintroducing charges. We intend to introduce regulations after consultation with local authority associations and as soon as practicable after the Bill is enacted. It may, therefore, be completely unnecessary to use the transitional charges as outlined in subsections (2) and (3) of clause 1. Even if it proves necessary to use the powers, no charge will be levied on planning authorities without giving them advance warning.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Sir Paul Beresford: I shall not give way as we have spent enough time on the matter.
The amendment is merely another delaying tactic. It would introduce uncertainty, which local authorities do not need, and I ask the House to reject it.

Mr. John McAllion: It is now time to put a kilt on proceedings with a speech from a Scottish Member of Parliament. May I extend a Scottish welcome to your elevation to the knighthood, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
The Minister referred to fatal mistakes. He appeared to believe that it was a fatal mistake to give way to Labour Members because it put him completely off his stroke and he could not read the briefing that the civil servants had passed to him. That was the level of his contribution to tonight's debate.
I was surprised that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), who is here tonight, chose not to take part in the debate, as clauses 3 and 4 apply to Scotland. It is insulting to the Scottish people that a Scottish Office Minister should be present in the House while we are discussing the issue, but choose not to take part in such an important debate.

Mr. Stevenson: I am sure that his predecessor would have done so.

Mr. McAllion: As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) says, his predecessor, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is in the Chamber tonight, would have taken part in the debate had he still been a Scottish Office Minister, but certain circumstances led to his resignation.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Eastwood, who was in charge of the Bill, put an argument in defence of retrospection that we did not hear tonight. He argued that for the past 25 years everyone—successive Ministers, local authorities and inquiry reporters—had been working on the assumption that the Government had the statutory power to charge local authorities for the costs incurred in appointing inquiry reporters on planning issues. We now know that the assumption was wrong and they had no such power or legal authority to make those charges and that they were acting unlawfully. Had councillors acted in such a way for the past 25 years, they would have been surcharged by the Government, yet I suspect that the Government will not surcharge anyone for illegal action in the past 25 years.
The hon. Member for Eastwood went on to argue that the Government acted in perfectly good faith because they did not know that they were acting unlawfully when they took the money from the councils. Pleading ignorance is not much of a defence in law, or anywhere else, although increasingly we hear that the Conservative Government did not know what was going on—whether it was arms for Iraq, arms for Iran or cash for questions. It is not a good legal defence, and it is less of a defence for councillors.
The Government instituted the practice in local government whereby council officers are instructed to warn councillors if they believe that councillors are about to act illegally. If the Government are prepared to do that for local government, why cannot they do it for central Government? Why cannot civil servants or judges—who are very popular among Conservative Members—be appointed to warn Ministers when they are acting unlawfully and beyond their legal powers? If they had introduced the same set-up in central Government that exists in local government, the problem might not have arisen.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when his party was in power it charged on exactly the same basis and had the same


understanding with local government that it was legal to do so? Does he accept, therefore, that the assumption existed on both sides of the House?

Mr. McAllion: I accept entirely that the situation existed under Labour Governments as well as under Conservative Governments. I am certain, however, that a Labour Government would not now be seeking retrospectively to put right what was wrong. A Labour Government would accept that an error had been made and that they had to live with the costs of that error. Central Government would be responsible for making the payments as local government was working under the conditions that central Government had created for it.

Sir Paul Beresford: Would they not want returned the balance paid through the rate support grant and the SSA assessment to the local authorities over many years?

Mr. McAllion: The Government gave green dowries to water companies when they had already paid for them over the years through council tax support—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the amendment.

Mr. McAllion: I was merely trying to respond to the poor point made by the Minister.

Mr. Kynoch: rose—

Mr. McAllion: Another poor Minister is trying to intervene.

Mr. Kynoch: I have not participated in the debate because the arguments were covered fully in Committee and previously. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this retrospection will bring no extra charge to any local authority in his area in Scotland?

Mr. McAllion: I thought for a moment that the Minister was about to say that the arguments had been covered fully by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, but he noticeably failed to say that. He said that they had been fully covered in Committee and elsewhere. I agree that his hon. Friend has not covered the arguments tonight. That became increasingly obvious as the debate went on. I have now forgotten what the point was.

Mr. Kynoch: I shall repeat it for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, who obviously has a short memory. Does he accept that retrospection means no extra payment for local authorities, and that if retrospection is not in place there will be chaos because local authorities will be able to ask for funds back which they have already been given by the Government?

Mr. McAllion: I accept that the position in Scotland is different from in England and Wales, but clause 2 applies to England and Wales and money is involved. Money has been given back to local authorities that will need to be repaid as a result of clause 2. It will still have to be paid back to central Government if the clause is applied retrospectively. The Minister must understand that.
I shall come to what local authorities have to say about the clause in a minute, but before I do I want to say that the argument that local authorities have been acting under

the same assumption over the last 25 years does not pass muster. If the Minister thinks for a moment, he will realise that local authorities are simply the creatures of statute passed by the House under the advice of Ministers. Their powers, responsibilities and competencies are defined for them. The sovereign authority lies with the House and it is the House that got it wrong during the past 25 years and it is the House that must put it right and accept responsibility for paying the costs of putting it right. That is the simple point that has to be made.
The Minister asked about the position of local authorities in Scotland. COSLA—for the benefit of English Members, that is the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—has made its position clear. It accepts that, under the kind of 19th century constitution that we have, Parliament has the power to pass retrospective legislation. But it goes on to point out that, as a matter of good law and practice, Parliament should do that only in exceptional circumstances. In COSLA's view, this is not one of those exceptional circumstances.
COSLA goes on to point out that the small sums involved in Scotland—about £320,000 a year—do not justify the use of retrospective legislation in Scotland. Scottish local authorities are telling the Minister not to do it. I am telling the Minister not to do it and the Opposition are telling the Minister not to do it. If he was wise, he would not do it. It is as simple as that.
In Committee, the Minister also argued that this is not true retrospection. He said that the law is simply being put back to what it has universally been seen as being for the past 25 years. However, I will remind the Minister that the law is the law. It is not what it is seen to be but what it is. There was no express or implied legal power for the Government or any other Government to make the charges on local authorities, which they have been doing during the last 25 years. They have been acting beyond their powers, and in a parliamentary democracy that is not acceptable.
If the Government choose to act retrospectively to put right what has been wrong, I can only warn them that they are setting a dangerous precedent. Future Parliaments may apply the law retrospectively in circumstances that will not be to their liking. The Government are setting the precedent with which they will have to live.

Mr. Kynoch: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that no money will be transferred and that the Bill simply legalises what Governments of both complexions and local authorities believed to be the position?

Mr. McAllion: It is not legalising what they believed to be the position. Labour Members who have been responsible in the past are no longer in the House. Labour Members now are a very different group from previous Labour Members.
Labour councils made it clear that they do not believe that the Bill should be applied retrospectively. It is as simple as that, and if the Minister does not understand that as a Scottish Office Minister, he really should listen to what Scottish local authorities have to say.
9.30 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) made a good point when he said that the Minister is sometimes in favour of retrospective legislation and is sometimes against it. What he really


meant is that when it suits him, the Minister is in favour of retrospective legislation. That is hardly a principled decision, because democratic principles are not matters of convenience. A true democrat is somebody who sticks to his principles even when they do not suit him. According to that test, the Government have shown that they are not true democrats.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 190.

Division No. 170]
[9.30 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Hall, Mike


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Hanson, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Harvey, Nick


Ashton, Joe
Heppell, John


Austin-Walker, John
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hinchliffe, David


Barnes, Harry
Hoey, Kate


Bayley, Hugh
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Home Robertson, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Hood, Jimmy


Betts, Clive
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Boateng, Paul
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Bradley, Keith
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Burden, Richard
Ingram, Adam


Byers, Stephen
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Callaghan, Jim
Jamieson, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Chidgey, David
Keen, Alan


Chisholm, Malcolm
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,CS)


Clapham, Michael
Khabra, Piara S


clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Kiffoyle, Peter


Clelland, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Coffey, Ann
Lewis, Terry


Connarty, Michael
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Loyden, Eddie


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McAllion, John


Corston, Jean
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
McCartney, Ian


Davidson, Ian
Macdonald, Calum


Denham, John
Maclennan, Robert


Dewar, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Donohoe, Brian H
Maddock, Diana


Dowd, Jim
Mahon, Alice


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marek, Dr John


Eagle, Ms Angela
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Eastham, Ken
Marltew, Eric


Enright, Derek
Maxton, John


Etherington, Bill
Michael, Alun


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll  Bute)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Milburn, Alan


Foster, Don (Bath)
Morgan, Rhodri


Foulkes, George
Morley, Eliot


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Galbraith, Sam
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gapes, Mike
Mudie, George


George, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Gerrard, Neil
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Godman, Dr Norman A
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Godsiff, Roger
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Gordon, Mildred
O'Hara, Edward


Graham, Thomas
Olner, Bill


Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)
Parry, Robert


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pike, Peter L


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pope, Greg


Grccott, Bruce
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gunnell, John
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)





Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tipping, Paddy


Quin, Ms Joyce
Touhig, Don


Radice, Giles
Turner, Dennis


Reid, Dr John
Tyler, Paul


Rendel, David
Vaz, Keith


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wareing, Robert N


Rooney, Terry
Watson, Mike


Simpson, Alan
Wicks, Malcolm


Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winnick, David


Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Audrey


Spellar, John
Worthington, Tony


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wright, Dr Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stevenson, George



Sutcliffe, Gerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Joe Benton, and


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Ms Estelle Morris.


NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Fabricant, Michael


Amess, David
Field, Barry (lsle of Wight)


Arbuthnot, James
Fishbum, Dudley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forman, Nigel


Ashby, David
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stlirling)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fry, Sir Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gallie, Phil


Bates, Michael
Gardiner, Sir George


Batiste, Spencer
Gillan, Cheryl


Bellingham, Henry
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brffen, Rt Hon John
Gorst, Sir John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowis, John
Hague, William


Brandreth, Gyles
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Brazier, Julian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bright, Sir Graham
Hannam, Sir John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Brown, M (Brigg  Cl'thorpes)
Harris, David


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Butcher, John
Hawksley, Warren


Butler, Peter
Hayes, Jerry


Carrington, Matthew
Heald, Oliver


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Horam, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


COE, Sebastian
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Congdon, David
Hunter, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jenkin, Bemard


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Couchman, James
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Cran, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knapman, Roger


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dover, Den
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Duncan, Alan
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dykes, Hugh
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Elletson, Harold
Legg, Barry


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lidington, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lightbown, David


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Faber, David
Luff, Peter






MacKay, Andrew
Spink, Dr Robert


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, Sir David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan


Mans, Keith
Streeter, Gary


Marlow, Tony
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sykes, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Merchant, Piers
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain
Thomason, Roy


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Moss, Malcolm
Thumham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Trend, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr lan


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walden, George


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pawsey, James
Waller, Gary


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Ward, John


Pickles, Eric
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waterson, Nigel


Powell, William (Corby)
Wells, Bowen


Richards, Rod
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Riddick, Graham
Whittingdale, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Widdecombe, Ann


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wilkinson, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Willetts, David


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George



Shersby, Sir Michael


Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. Simon Burns and


Spencer, Sir Derek
Dr. Liam Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.
Order for Third Reading read.

Sir Paul Beresford: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I did not believe that we could hear so much verbiage in such a small event. On Report, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) desperately tried to justify his position. I remind hon. Members that the Royal Town Planning Institute's independent opinion is that the Bill simply puts the law back to what it was universally seen to be for the past 25 years until last year.

Mr. Vaz: I assure the Minister that if I were seeking to justify my position I certainly would not have called four votes on Report on the night that the beer club was sailing down the Thames. On Second Reading I promised a bare-knuckle fight with the Government if Ministers failed to compromise on a number of important points in the Bill. In that spirit the Opposition tabled a number of reasonable amendments in Committee and on Report that we hoped would improve the Bill.
Town and country planning legislation should not be controversial, and I regret that I had to call so many votes on Report. But that was necessary because of the Bill's contents. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for

Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham), for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) and for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr Stevenson) for their excellent contributions in Committee and on Report.
We shall vote against Third Reading for three reasons. The first is that the Bill imposes greater burdens on local authorities. Secondly, we shall vote against it because the Government did not keep their promise about full consultation with the local authority associations. Thirdly, we shall oppose Third Reading because of the most dangerous precedent of all in the Bill—that of retrospective legislation. For that third reason more than any other we oppose the Bill.
Judge Chase, speaking in the case of Calder v. Bull, said that every law that takes away or impairs rights vested agreeably to existing laws is retrospective, generally unjust and may be oppressive, and it is a good general rule that a law should have no retrospective effect. The Government seek to break that precedent. Ministers will regret that decision, which will be reluctantly forced on reluctant councils. The legislation will come hack to haunt the Minister and the Government.

Mr. Rendel: At the grave risk of being accused by Ministers of standing here merely to justify my position, I shall add a few points. Obviously, the main points that can be made against Third Reading are simply that the amendments that should have been passed tonight have not been, and that the Bill is unacceptable without them. It is also important, however, to point out that the Bill is a great missed opportunity. It deals with planning law and there is a lot wrong with planning law. It is a great pity that the Government have not included in the Bill the proposals that should have been included to rectify those faults.
In particular, it is clear that there is a great disparity between the opportunities given to the big boys in planning—the local authorities, the Government and the major developers—and the much smaller opportunities given to the small man—the individual objector to a planning development proposal. That should and could have been rectified in the Bill. 1 too will oppose it and I hope that my party will do so.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 155.

Division No. 171]
[9.45 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amess, David
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brandreth, Gyles


Ashby, David
Brazier, Julian


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bright, Sir Graham


Baker; Nicholas (North Dorset)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Brown, M (Brigg  Cl'thorpes)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Burt, Alistair


Bates, Michael
Butcher, John


Batiste, Spencer
Butler, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Carrington, Matthew


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carttiss, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chapman, Sydney






Clappison, James
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Coe, Sebastian
Legg, Barry


Congdon, David
Leigh, Edward


Conway, Derek
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Lidington, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lightbown, David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Luff, Peter


Couchman, James
MacKay, Andrew


Cran, James
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Madel, Sir David


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Maitland, Lady Olga


Dicks, Terry
Mabne, Gerald


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mans, Keith


Dover, Den
Marlow, Tony


Duncan, Alan
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dykes, Hugh
Merchant, Piers


Elletson, Harold
Mills, Iain


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Monro, Sir Hector


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Moss, Malcolm


Evennett, David
Nelson, Anthony


Faber, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Nicholls, Patrick


Fishbum, Dudley
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Forman, Nigel
Oppenheim, Phillip


Forsylh, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Pawsey, James


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Pickles, Eric


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fry, Sir Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Gallie, Phil
Richards, Rod


Gardiner, Sir George
Riddick, Graham


Gillan, Cheryl
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gorst, Sir John
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hague, William
Shersby, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Sims, Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hannam, Sir John
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hargreaves, Andrew
Spink, Dr Robert


Harris, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Steen, Anthony


Hawksley, Warren
Stephen, Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Stem, Michael


Heald, Oliver
Stewart, Allan


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Streeter, Gary


Hendry, Charles
Sweeney, Walter


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Sykes, John


Horam, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Thomason, Roy


Hunter, Andrew
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Jack, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Jenkin, Bernard
Thurnham, Peter


Jessel, Toby
Trend, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Trotter, Neville


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Viggers, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom
Walden, George


Kirkhope, Timothy
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Knapman, Roger
Waller, Gary


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Ward, John


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Waterson, Nigel





Wells, Bowen
Wolfson, Mark


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Whittingdale, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Widdecombe, Ann



Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilkinson, John
Mr. David Willetts and


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. Simon Burns.


NOES


Ainger, Nick
Hinchliffe, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Hoey, Kate


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Ashton, Joe
Home Robertson, John


Austin-Walker, John
Hood, Jimmy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Barnes, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bayley, Hugh
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Beith, Rt Hon A J 
Ingram, Adam


Bennett, Andrew F
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Benton, Joe
Jamieson, David


Betts, Clive
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Blunkett, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Boateng, Paul
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Bradley, Keith
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Burden, Richard
Lewis, Terry


Byers, Stephen
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Callaghan, Jim
Loyden, Eddie


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McAllion, John


Canavan, Dennis
McAvoy, Thomas


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
McCartney, Ian


Chidgey, David
Macdonald, Calum


Chisholm, Malcolm
Maclennan, Robert


Clapham, Michael
McWilliam, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Madden, Max


Clelland, David
Maddock, Diana


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Marek, Dr John


Coffey, Ann
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Connarty, Michael
Martlew, Eric


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Maxton, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Michael, Alun


Corston, Jean
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll  Bute)


Davidson, Ian
Milburn, Alan


Denham, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Dewar, Donald
Morley, Elliot


Dixon, Don
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Donohoe, Brian H
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mowlam, Marjorie


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mullin, Chris


Eastham, Ken
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Enright, Derek
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Etherington, Bill
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Fatchett, Derek
O'Hara, Edward


Flynn, Paul
Olner, Bill


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Parry, Robert


Foster, Don (Bath)
Pike, Peter L


Foulkes, George
Pope, Greg


Fyfe, Maria
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Galbraith, Sam
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Gapes, Mike
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


George, Bruce
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gerrard, Neil
Radice, Giles


Godman, Dr Norman A
Reid, Dr John


Godsiff, Roger
Rendel, David


Gordon, Mildred
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Graham, Thomas
Rooney, Terry


Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)
Simpson, Alan


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Skinner, Dennis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Grocott, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Gunnell, John
Spellar, John


Hall, Mike
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Hanson, David
Steinberg, Gerry


Harvey, Nick
Stevenson, George


Heppell, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)






Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wilson, Brian


Tipping, Paddy
Winnick, David


Touhig, Don
Wise, Audrey


Turner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Tyler, Paul
Wright, Dr Tony


Vaz, Keith
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wareing, Robert N
Tellers for the Noes:


Watson, Mike
Mr. George Mudie and


Wicks, Malcolm
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Drugs (Glasgow)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Mike Watson: I am sure that in responding to the debate, the Minister will, as is traditional, congratulate me on securing a debate on this subject. I am sure, however, that he will understand when I say that it gives me no pleasure this evening to discuss drugs in Glasgow. The subject brings misery, chaos and pain to so many people in Glasgow and increasingly, even more sadly, it brings death.
In common with most cities throughout the world, the misuse of drugs is widespread throughout the city of Glasgow. Over the past 15 years, the range of drugs used and the number of people using them appear to have increased dramatically; that is particularly true of teenagers and young adults. Last year, the Greater Glasgow health board prepared a report on the scale and pattern of drug misuse in the city. The report shows widespread use of cannabis; Ecstasy and amphetamines are popular recreational drugs on the dance scene. LSD and cocaine, although less widely used, are found to be quite prominent. The misuse of pharmaceutical drugs is common. These include potentially addictive tranquillisers such as Temazepam and Valium, and opiate painkillers such as Temgesic. Some of these drugs originate from local NHS prescriptions, but many are illicitly obtained.
It was estimated that there were between 7,000 and 9,000 drug injectors in Glasgow—the figure has now been uprated—most of whom were in their twenties and lived in socially deprived—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Watson: It was estimated that there were between 7,000 and 9,000 drug injectors in Glasgow, most of whom were in their twenties and lived in socially deprived areas of the city. That is an important aspect of drug addiction. Of those who died an often painful death in the city last year, few were categorised as being young trainee chartered accountants, student lawyers or chartered surveyors. It is increasingly people from the most socially deprived areas of the city who are caught up in the drug culture. Typically, heroin or Temgesic is injected daily by many of these people, and the drug is often taken in combination with Temazepam or a variety of other drugs, producing all too often a lethal cocktail.
As a spin-off from the culture of injection, at least 300 people in the city require care as a result of HIV infections. That places an additional burden on the medical services. Fatal overdose among drug injectors is the most important single cause of death among young adults in Glasgow. Although the prevalence of HIV infection among drug injectors remains relatively low, other dangerous blood-borne viral infections, such as hepatitis B and C, are widespread and could yet have long-term consequences.
In the face of those frightening statistics, Greater Glasgow health board has taken significant steps to deal with drug misuse, including the establishment of a


successful needle exchange service and a range of community drug services funded by the health board and managed by Strathclyde region's social work department. I pay tribute at this stage to the Glasgow drug problem service, which was introduced in 1993 and which provides specialist treatment for drug users, and to the Glasgow drug crisis centre, which was opened in-1994 and is run by Turning Point, the largest UK charity helping people with drink, drug and mental health problems. That centre consists of a 24-hour, one-stop help and assessment service, together with a 12-bed emergency, short-stay facility. In the short time in which it has been in operation, it has been inundated by demands for its unique services, such is the scale of the drug problem in Glasgow today.
In 1994, official figures showed that 95 people died throughout Strathclyde from drugs or drug-related causes. Many of those deaths occurred within the city and this year, including the tragic deaths last weekend of 26-year-old Roger Gallagher in Clydebank and 27-year-old James Edgar in Bridgeton in my constituency, the figure already stands at 47. At that rate, it will comfortably reach three figures by the end of the year.
One of the organisations that regularly has to deal with the effects, as they affect families and friends of those who have died, is the Glasgow Association of Family Support Groups. It is under no illusions; it knows that the official figures represent a considerable understatement. It has joined me in calling on the Scottish Office to hold a wide-ranging, public inquiry into the causes of drug-related deaths in the city. I have to report, with dismay, that Lord Fraser, the Minister with responsibility, has turned down that request. He maintains that the fatal accident inquiry held in 1993 dealt with the matter, but the Glasgow Association of Family Support Groups maintains emphatically that it did not, and I support that view.
The inquiry left many questions unanswered and failed to consider various areas of concern. First, there is the likely under-reporting of deaths if the cause is given simply as a physical organ failure or inhalation of vomit, or other similar reasons. Secondly, there is the frequency of deaths involving people on prescription drugs, such as methadone and other medically prescribed medication. Thirdly, there are the different policies of health boards in respect of prescribing substitutes, which might also include the issue of differing approaches to harm reduction policies. Fourthly, there is the question of how and in what circumstances autopsies are carried out on people who die from an overdose. There appears to be a particular issue in this respect related to deaths in prison. Fifthly, a number of people commit suicide while undergoing detoxification programmes or die immediately after leaving residential detox centres.
Lord Fraser has agreed to meet the Glasgow Association of Family Support Groups and me. While that will enable us to highlight to the Minister the points that I have mentioned and others, it will not bring them into the open in the full glare of public inquiry. That is what is needed and I shall continue to press for it.
In the meantime, the drug trade carries on, bringing untold misery to thousands and untold riches to a select few. Only last week it was reported that a Robert Maxwell—that does not seem to be a very lucky name—was gaoled for 12 years for trafficking in heroin. By his mid-30s, he was comfortably a millionaire. Although he now languishes—thankfully—behind bars, no one doubts that his place has been quickly and most effectively filled.
There is hope, however, that some more people may follow Maxwell's journey to gaol. That is largely a result of an anti-drugs campaign launched by the Evening Times two weeks ago, for which the paper is due great credit, not least because it shows that the art of campaigning journalism is not lost—as has appeared from the recent antics of other tabloid newspapers that used to carry out that function.
The main thrust of the Evening Times campaign is to encourage people in the communities throughout the city to use a special hot line telephone number to report names and addresses of suppliers and pushers who bring daily misery and often death to thousands of mainly young people throughout Glasgow. The hot line has been such a success that more than 700 calls have been received in the two weeks since it was opened. The police have already acted on the names supplied by the Evening Times and, indeed, the first arrests have been made.
For a long time it has been obvious to me that many people in the city know who the pushers and suppliers are, where their houses are and which cars to look for at any particular time of the week. People come to my surgeries in the various communities in my constituency such as Calton, Gorbals, Bridgeton and Royston and say, "We know that so and so is dealing in drugs", "We know that she operates a safe house," and "We know that he is on a street corner at 11 o'clock any morning and that he will give this, this and this drug." They have reported that information to the police and, too often, it has been impossible for the police to act on it because they do not have firm evidence.
The Evening Times hot line has reported that a surprising number of women are involved in supplying drugs. Indeed, it has also said that families are dealing. It seems that the drugs culture is so endemic that people are quite prepared to operate openly in the streets. I have seen it myself, as have many other people in the city. Graphic pictures in the newspapers have shown such activity occurring quite openly and—apparently—with impunity.
That is not to blame the police. I have been in regular contact with the Strathclyde police drug squad and I commend it for its job. If its resources were significantly increased, it would enable it to target certain areas, to which I shall return. My comments are not meant as a criticism of the police. Often it is simply impossible for them to catch the people who are known to be dealing because of an intricate system of signals and tip-offs. Often, shortwave radios are used to intercept police raids.
Certain names are given regularly to the hot line. I believe that those evil people have no right to anonymity, which the Evening Times is obliged, for legal reasons, to provide. I have a list of those people most regularly named by callers to the hot line. That the people named are guilty of dealing in death is not seriously in doubt. It is my sincere wish that they should be exposed and I now have the opportunity of doing so.
Before preparing this speech, I felt obliged to contact Strathclyde police for their view on what I intended to do. I believe that the people named should have no hiding place. Strathclyde police considered my views and the names which I was about to announce and urged caution on me. Their view was that my reading out a list of names would not be helpful to bringing prosecutions. Having taken their advice, it seems to make little sense to cast it aside.
The aim is, of course, to lock up as many of those people as possible, as quickly as possible, to get them off the streets and to ensure that they can no longer ply their evil trade. It is with considerable reluctance, therefore, that I will not name names at this stage, although I intend to do so on a future date in the House, if given the opportunity, should those people not be brought to trial. I want to do everything I can to assist Strathclyde police in bringing those people before the law. I am anxious that, were I to name names, that might prejudice any proceedings that might be brought against them. I obviously see no benefit from that course of action.
The Evening Times campaign will continue and I am proud to do what I can to support it. Action is needed and I hope that the Minister will provide some positive proposals in his response.
I joined many agencies, statutory and non-statutory, in welcoming the report of the Scottish drugs task force, which was published in October. It contained 60 recommendations, many of potential value. The first steps are now being taken to introduce some of those proposals; meanwhile I must draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the number of drug-related deaths has continued to rise in Glasgow. This year's total so far is greater even than that reached in 1994. An effective response to try to reduce that death rate requires an input from a range of agencies in a multi-agency approach.
Recommendation 25 of the task force report stated:
The community Drug Problem Service model for providing services to drug misusers should be further developed with a view to achieving more referrals from and to generic social work services".
It has been argued that prescribing services can be effective only if they work in tandem with the social care agencies, particularly community-based drug services. I certainly support that view. Many of the community-based agencies still feel that the prescribing model operating in Glasgow could improve its links with other agencies to provide a more effective service.
Statistics from the Glasgow drug crisis centre, to which I referred earlier, show that 80 per cent. of its clients did not have secure accommodation and 25 per cent. were rootless. That makes access to primary health care and prescribing services difficult, if not impossible. The clients of the Glasgow drug crisis centre are the most at risk drug users. It is the subject of concern that they find it impossible to access the prescribing service even though they are likely to be in greatest need. That supports the need for an effective multi-agency approach, which was outlined in recommendation 37 of the task force report.
I am pleased to note that drug action teams have been established in the various health board areas, including Glasgow, and will produce strategies by the end of September. That is, however, some time off and I want to see effective implementation of recommendation 21 of the task force report, which stated:
Future service development must be based on a systematic and comprehensive assessment of the nature, extent and distribution of need".
Action is needed in some specific areas. I am well aware that throwing money at any problem, not least the problem of drugs, is not the answer. I am not advocating that, but additional funding is needed for some specific provisions, particularly detoxification and rehabilitation centres. Two centres are operating in the Greater Glasgow

health board area—Red towers at Helensburgh and the recently opened Phoenix house in Keppochill, Glasgow. They provide a service the success of which is beyond question, as does the Calton Athletic recovery group. That group has a rather unorthodox means of dealing with drug users, but one which has, by its record, shown itself to be effective. The success of those centres is not in question, but they could do more with greater funding. For instance, the Phoenix house rehabilitation centre at Keppochill is running at only 60 per cent. of capacity. a year after opening. With greater funding it could be running at 100 per cent. capacity and helping more people accordingly.
I believe that the police need more dedicated drug squad officers to combat the ever-growing army of pushers and suppliers. In my experience drug-related offences are too often simply the responsibility of officers who are also dealing with car crime, assaults, house breaking and such crime. The police should be able to concentrate on drugs. I would like some form of rapid response group to be formed with responsibility for dealing with the suppliers identified by the public as well as drug-related crime. I have had discussions with Strathclyde police about the proposal, which I intend to continue, and I should be interested to hear the Minister's view on it. If the Minister has not prepared a response, perhaps he could let me know his view at a later date.
I believe that we must discuss whether the law needs to be re-examined with regard to the penalties for pushers and suppliers. I firmly believe that there should be a greater use of the charge of culpable homicide for those found to have supplied users who have subsequently died. That is particularly relevant in relation to some of the deaths that have occurred recently at raves and other dance clubs, where it is quite clear that some of the drugs offered for sale quite knowingly were lethal weapons.
Temazepam is a major factor in many of the drug deaths in the city. It is widely available, and it should be re-categorised from schedule 4 to 3 to allow prison sentences on conviction of possession. One of the points made to me by the Glasgow Association of Family Support Groups was that, if possible, Temazepam should be taken off the streets of Glasgow, and should certainly no longer be a prescribed drug.
I accept that the use of drugs is now so widespread that only containment is possible. It is not possible to eradicate drug abuse, and we must look at the problem in that setting. In the long term, some answers will flow from an economy that is more vibrant and gives people the opportunity for jobs, training and perhaps having a house and raising a family. There is a feeling of hopelessness among the young people I meet in Glasgow. I ask them why they get involved in the drugs scene, and their answer is, "Why not? What else do I have to look forward to?"
While it is a cliché, it is also a truism that people who have nothing, have nothing to lose. We must give people some reason not to get sucked into the drug culture. For too many young people in and around Glasgow, their hopes for a family and a job are non-existent. I am not trying to make party political points, because even with a change of Government we will remain a long way short of changing that bleak outlook. I hope that the Minister will offer some hope to the young people of Glasgow in his response.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) has spoken about the misery, chaos and death caused by this evil trade, and I agree that it must be combated in an effective manner and in the best way possible. I would be hesitant about naming the names of those whom the hon. Gentleman believes to be involved because, as he said, that could easily prejudice proceedings. But if he or any of his friends or acquaintances has evidence readily available, I would strongly recommend that it is handed to the police.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about a rapid response force. The police would argue that they have in place arrangements to that effect, but I shall follow up the hon. Gentleman's point. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Operation Eagle initiative, which will operate for a period of six months with two main phases, each of which will run for a period of 90 days. Strathclyde police have strengthened their force, and the number of front-line officers has risen by nearly 250 in recent times, and that makes a considerable difference.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of Temazepam, and I can assure him that that is a matter of deep concern to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council set out on 10 May immediate steps to be taken to reduce its misuse. That has been done by imposing safe custody controls on manufacturers and wholesalers under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and by a proposal to ban the prescription of gel-filled capsules by general practitioners under the NHS. My right hon. Friend also confirmed that we are carefully considering the recommendation of the advisory council to reschedule Temazepam under the 1971 Act.
I can also confirm that consultation is now under way with a view to banning the prescribing of the gel-filled Temazepam capsules under the NHS. The consultation process will have two parts. The first stage was the issue of letters on 12 May to all manufacturers possessing product licences to supply Temazepam capsules, seeking comments on the proposal within 30 days. The next stage will begin shortly, with a more general public consultation.
Action has also been taken under section 11 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. I am glad to say that my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State will be meeting the hon. Gentleman and the Glasgow Association of Family Support Groups to discuss their concerns. We remain of the view that a public inquiry would add little to the information and knowledge currently available and is therefore not required.

Drug misuse is of immense concern to us all, be it central or local government, the health service, schools, local communities or indeed each one of us as individuals. It brings in its wake misery and despair, it devastates families, and it threatens communities. All too often it ends in death. In 1994 alone, drug misuse claimed the lives of 139 young people in Scotland who were known or suspected to be dependent upon drugs. That is an appalling statistic which graphically underlines why we regard drug misuse as one of the greatest challenges facing us today.
That is why public expenditure on drug misuse across a whole range of services—including the police, social work, education, urban aid, health and prisons—exceeds

£40 million every year. It is why, as I shall touch on later, we are absolutely determined to mount a fully integrated, co-ordinated and properly resourced assault on this evil scourge. The improved data now available and the new structures now in place at local and national levels will inform and facilitate the development of policy and the delivery of services.
The hon. Gentleman has properly focused on Glasgow from his constituency perspective, and I will respond to the detailed points that he has raised. But first I must mention that, conscious of the threat of drug misuse, in 1993 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set up a drugs task force under the chairmanship of my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State. We have also had the benefit of a comprehensive report from the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Taken together, the two reports provide a catalyst and a framework for a revitalised and informed response to the scourge of drug misuse to the end of the century and beyond.
The task force report emphasised the absolute importance of fully co-ordinated action against drug misuse; action which welded together the activities of all the agencies—statutory and non-statutory—into a synchronised and fully concerted approach, with common aims and objectives. Drug action teams—drawing together key personnel from the statutory and non-statutory bodies—have been set up in every health board area in Scotland. The teams are charged with organising and overseeing a corporate response to drug misuse in their areas. The teams began their work on 1 April and their first task will be to produce strategic plans for their areas by 1 October. We are funding the appointment of drug development officers to assist the teams in their work. They will be key figures, facilitating the implementation of the strategic plan and energising and co-ordinating drug-related work in their areas.
A crucial function of the teams will be to mobilise local action to confront drug misuse. I am increasingly impressed by the enormous reservoir of talent, energy and determination in the community which is willing to support action to turn the tide of drug misuse. We must tap that resource and harness community energy so that we deliver a powerful answer at local level to the threat of drug misuse. I commend the work of the local groups involved. To help stimulate local action, we are making available some £300,000 this year to fund innovative community-based schemes which respond to local circumstances, and I look to the drug action teams to submit imaginative proposals.
It is, of course, essential that resources are made available to facilitate the dynamic local response we are seeking to engender. In consequence, this year we are making available record resources of nearly £24 million to health boards to tackle drug misuse and HIV/AIDS. That is an enormous sum by any standards and it is evidence of our absolute commitment to meet drug misuse head on.
Schools have a vital role to play in the prevention effort. A sickening feature of the drugs scene is that increasingly younger age groups are being targeted by the dealers. We must respond to that by ensuring that, from an early age, our children are alerted to the dangers of drug misuse and that that awareness is maintained throughout their school careers. The task force identified a gap in the availability of materials for younger and older pupils and accordingly recommended that drug packages,


to complement Drugwise Too, should be developed, focusing on pupils under 10 and over 14 years. They will be ready shortly and will augment the range of materials available to teachers. All that will be complemented by public education campaigns, aimed at -maintaining the dangers of drug misuse and HIV/AIDS in the public consciousness.
Prevention will not by itself check drug misuse. We need effective services capable of tackling the whole spectrum of need. Encouraging progress is being made. I cite, for example, the crisis intervention centres in Glasgow and Edinburgh, which are invaluable assets in the panoply of services in those cities.
Substitute prescribing is an important ingredient of any range of service provision, but it is not a panacea and we have to create a framework in which it is delivered as part of a package of services tailored to the total needs of misusers and, where relevant, their families. We shall issue more specific guidance on substitute prescribing in due course, after consulting experts in the field.
In addition, the urban programme is very important. About 39 projects in Scotland dealing directly with drug misuse and representing funding of £3.7 million are currently being resourced in that way.
In Glasgow itself, 11 projects are at present being funded, at a cost of £1.4 million. Two further projects have been successful this year, completed at a cost of £250,000. I am glad to say that one of those was in Glasgow, with funding of £158,000, which is a welcome addition.
I should also say to the hon. Gentleman that it is worth noting for the future that detailed project selection will be done locally by authorities and their partners, in the framework of a regeneration strategy or programmes submitted to the Scottish Office. We are consulting local authorities and others about the way in which those changes will be implemented, for next year.
I now turn to Glasgow because all those measures are of relevance to Glasgow. The tragic consequences of drug misuse have time and again been demonstrated in the city. In 1994 alone, drug misuse claimed the lives of 72 young drug misusers in Greater Glasgow. That is an appalling waste, bringing grief and desolation to so many families, and I sympathise deeply with the families and friends who have been bereaved. Drugs can and do kill. The only safe answer is to avoid them at all costs.
The drug action team in Glasgow is now vigorously pressing ahead with the development of a strategic plan under the expert leadership of the Rev. Roderick

Campbell. I have no doubt that the team will bring a dynamic, innovative and strategic approach to the problems in Glasgow.
There is encouraging evidence of real progress, and I cite two examples. First, the Glasgow drug problem service, with its combination of counselling and treatment, is already making a substantial contribution. We are also giving Greater Glasgow health board almost £6 million this year specifically for drug misuse and for HIV/AIDS which, among a range of other initiatives, has enabled an expansion of the Glasgow drug problem service.
Secondly, the Glasgow drug crisis centre, which opened last October, is another valuable addition to the range of services available in the area, providing respite and care for misusers in crisis and in need of urgent attention. That is an excellent example of co-operation between the statutory and non-statutory sectors.
Injecting remains a serious problem, bringing with it, not only the risk of AIDS where needle sharing occurs, but death through overdosing. We have provided resources for nine needle and syringe schemes to be established in Glasgow, reducing the pressure to share needles and the risk of infection.
We stand ready to authorise further schemes where recommended. We are also considering recommendations by the task force and the Select Committee of how best the range of outlets for needles and syringes might be extended.
It is very important that we do everything possible to encourage young people to kick the habit of drug taking, as the only risk-free solution. Material communicating that message is being piloted by about 20 drug agencies in Glasgow, and an evaluation is under way. I am glad to say that the results so far are positive.
I hope that, by what I have said tonight, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are totally committed to turning the tide of drug misuse in Glasgow and throughout Scotland. Central Government will play their full part and more, but that alone will not suffice. What is required is a concerted, strategic yet targeted approach, which brings together the efforts of all the agencies, statutory and non-statutory. I believe that we now have the mechanisms in place, and that the drug action team will provide the catalyst for a sustained and committed response to drug misuse in Glasgow.
I cannot emphasise too strongly that we regard this as an evil trade, and we will stop at nothing to ensure that it is brought to an end. Young people should have a full and fulfilled life. Nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of that.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.